Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Multiple Occupancy

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what further proposals lie intends to make to improve safety in houses in multiple occupancy in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): I have asked my officials to consult urgently with local authorities and other relevant bodies with a view to stimulating practical initiatives to bring about improved safety and other standards in such accommodation.

Mr. John: The Minister will know the inadequacy of the present law, which was tragically demonstrated by a fire which occurred in one such house in my constituency towards the end of last year. Will he consider three specific suggestions? First, the inspection of the property should be a duty on local authorities and fire authorities rather than merely a power. Secondly, if any of the houses are closed because fire precautions are inadequate, displaced residents should be in the priority categories of homeless people. Thirdly, does the Minister agree that 'the owners of such houses, some of whom benefit by many thousands of pounds each year, should have strict duties placed upon them to ensure the proper adaptation of the houses and the highest degree of fire safety?

Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the tragic fire that took place in Pontypridd and I extend my sympathy to the relatives of those concerned. With regard to the three points which the hon. Gentleman made, first, we believe that local authorities have adequate powers under existing laws and we urge them to use those powers. Secondly, there are duties in relation to fire safety precautions which local authorities are obliged to carry out. Thirdly, the owners of such homes are under certain statutory obligations and it is for the local authorities to ensure that those statutory obligations are carried out.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that not all local authorities would fully accept his contention that their powers are adequate in this respect? Without going so far as the moves proposed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), will my hon. Friend undertake to look very carefully at this again?

Mr. Robinson: I certainly undertake to look at it, but I note that, so far, only two local authorities operate registration schemes—in Cardiff and in Swansea.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister has just said that there are adequate powers under the present laws. Is he aware that the Government survey published on 23 January showed that more than 81 per cent. of houses in multiple occupation are deficient in means of escape from fire and that the present laws cover only an estimated 8 per cent. of them? Will the Minister give an assurance that on Friday the Government will not talk out my Bill, which is designed specifically to deal with this subject? Is he aware that if the Government talk the Bill out they will face a tidal wave of outrage at their lack of concern?

Mr. Robinson: That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the House on Friday.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local councils are making sufficient use of their powers in this regard?

Mr. Robinson: We are not satisfied, and we are taking steps to draw local authorities' attention to the powers that are available to them and which they should be exercising.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that one of the best means of counteracting the hazards of multiple


occupation is to allow local authorities to build up their depleted housing stock, which would have the social benefit of enabling people to live in decent homes and the economic advantage of putting more than 20,000 building workers back to work?

Mr. Robinson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are no restrictions on local authorities expanding their housing stock. That is a matter for their own priorities.

Special Health Authority

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the membership, staffing, resources, strategy and policy of the special health authority to be set up to deal with health education matters in Wales.

Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend announced the remit of the new authority on 16 January and a statement on membership will be made shortly. I am pleased to announce that we shall be making £1·2 million available to the authority in its first year.

Mr. Raffan: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, especially about the dramatic increase in resources. Will he take the opportunity offered by these much-strengthened health education arrangements to introduce a distinctly Welsh initiative and put Wales in the vanguard of education on drug misuse?

Mr. Robinson: The Welsh health promotion authority will have wide powers of health promotion and will continue the campaigns already under way, such as Heartbeat Wales and the work of the health advisory committee. The £1·2 million that I have announced is an increase of 50 per cent. on comparable expenditure this year, but it is not the entire budget available for health promotion in Wales, which should amount to a total of £2·2 million for the year in question.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the Minister agree that money spent on promoting education on the dangers of tobacco smoking will be wasted if the Government continue to take a pusillanimous attitude to the money spent by tobacco companies on art and other forms of culture?

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the new agreement reached between the Government and the tobacco companies.

Mr. Best: Notwithstanding the welcome resources being made available by the Government to tackle drug abuse and other health problems in Wales, does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest problem is, has been, and is likely to remain, that of alcohol abuse? What do the Government intend to do, within the terms of the measure that my hon. Friend has announced, to advise people of the dangers of alcohol abuse?

Mr. Robinson: Both drug abuse and alcohol abuse will fall within the remit of the new special health authority.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House and to the professionals engaged in health education in Wales that the arrangements will not prejudice the independence of health education from Government? Concern has been expressed that the establishment of the special health authority might mean

that those involved in health education could no longer independently criticise Government policy when it is inimical to good health.

Mr. Robinson: The independence that existed before the arrangements were made will remain after they come into force.

Housing (Rhyl)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions his officials have had with Rhuddlan borough council about grants for housing action in Rhyl.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Our officials have had a number of such discussions with Rhuddlan borough council. The most recent was on 4 February 1987, when the authority's proposals for potential housing action areas and enveloping schemes in Rhyl were discussed.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is he aware that although the borough of Rhuddlan as a whole does not have a particularly acute housing problem, in one small part of the Rhyl—the west end—there is quite a severe problem of sharply deteriorating housing conditions? Will my hon. Friend have further discussions with the council to see whether it needs any further help to speed up its programme?

Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand that Rhuddlan borough council has underspent in terms of the housing spending power available to it in each of the past five years. I have asked my officials to have further discussions with the council to encourage it to devise a strategy for tackling the real problems which I know exist in Rhyl.

Rates

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what average level of rate increases he expects in Wales for the year 1987–88.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The rate support grant settlement that I intend to make for 1987–88 is a generous one for Wales. As I have told the House, I intend to increase all the main components by more than the forecast rate of inflation. Consequently, if councils spend in line with the settlement, and after allowing for the settlement of the teachers' pay dispute, the average rate increase in Wales should be in low single figures. As I warned the Welsh Grand Committee, some counties seem to be planning expenditure which would produce higher increases than that. I hope that those councils will think again.

Sir Raymond Gower: In view of the forecasts of higher rate increased in some counties, will my right hon. Friend name any factors that he thinks would justify such higher increases?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think there are any such factors. It is within the power of local authorities, spending at about the same level as the general increase in costs this year, or even a little more, to keep rate bills down to low single figures, and in some instances to make reductions. Some of the proposals being considered by some counties bear no relationship to the increase in costs in the economy as a whole or to the requirements and needs of their ratepayers.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that for our 37 district councils the year-on-year increase in block grant is only 0.7 per cent. and that with his imposed settlement there is such volatility that it is likely to bring about rate variations of between minus 20 per cent. and plus 30 per cent? Would the right hon. Gentleman expect private enterprise to function successfully with such crazy arithmetic?

Mr. Edwards: It is perfectly true that in this year's settlement we have put the emphasis on the priority areas of education and law and order which, broadly, come under the responsibility of the counties, and that some of the precepts by districts will be relatively high. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, however, the effect of the district increases on the rates bill paid by the ratepayer is relatively small because the county share is by far the largest proportion.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend impress upon Clwyd county council that the ratepayers of Clwyd, especially those who are also employers, cannot afford such absurdities as, first, a castle and a proposed concert hall on the lines of Sydney opera house, both of which have serious revenue, let alone capital, implications, and secondly, 22,300 surplus primary and secondary school places which cost £3 million per year to keep empty?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the problem of surplus school places. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), told the House when we last answered Welsh questions, there are 150,000 surplus school places in Wales, costing about £18 million a year, which could be used to improve the education service. There is no doubt that if Clwyd pursued sensible policies there could be a low rate increase.

Welsh Language

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement outlining his Department's policy and level of per capita support for the promotion of the Welsh language.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined the Government's policy in his speech to representatives of Gwynedd county council on 15 April 1980, a copy of which is in the Library. Direct Government expenditure on the Welsh language in 1986–87 for each Welsh-speaking resident aged three years and over is expected to be £6·42. That does not include approximately £14 million spent by local education authorities on Welsh medium and bilingual education or support amounting to some £34 million for S4C.

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply, and I apologise to Welsh Members for trespassing. My interest is simply this. How much interdepartmental contact do Welsh Office officials dealing with the promotion of the Welsh language and culture have with their opposite numbers in the Scottish Office? I do not know the outturn for those figures in Wales, but there is a strong feeling in Scotland that the Welsh are doing considerably better than the Gaels with regard to expenditure. Any nudges that the Minister's officials could give to the Scottish Office would be appreciated.

Mr. Roberts: With regard to expenditure on the promotion of the Gaelic language, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses a question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the meantime, perhaps he would care to look at the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend in July last year to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite all that expenditure, the use of the Welsh language declines inexorably year on year? Does he therefore agree that the use of minority languages, whether Welsh, Gaelic or Gujarati, is a divisive rather than a uniting factor and that any such expenditure should be seriously reviewed?

Mr. Roberts: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view. We do not accept the inexorable decline of the Welsh language. In fact, we are doing everything possible to promote the Welsh language. It is the oldest language still spoken in the United Kingdom, and I think that most. hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with the Government's policy of promoting its survival.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the consultation about a new Welsh language Act which the Minister's Department has launched with a number of bodies in Wales, will he give an assurance that his announcement to the press in the past two weeks about the slowness of the response coming to hand is not a ploy by the Welsh Office to delay the reviewing of that response beyond 31 March? Will he undertake to produce a White Paper on the Government's intentions shortly after the conclusion of the consultation?

Mr. Roberts: The hon . Gentleman is aware that we allowed six months for the consultation period. He is also aware that I was concerned that only 10 per cent. of the bodies to which we sent consultation papers had replied by a week or so ago. Eight weeks remain until the end of the consultation period. That was the purpose of my press announcement. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's request for a White Paper, we must obviously consider the replies that we receive and consult within Government.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister repeat the figures of support? Did he say that it was £6·35 per Welsh-speaking person in Wales? If so, what is the significance of relating that amount to Welsh-speaking people? Surely if we are to develop the Welsh language, to which the Minister says he is committed, the amount of money spent in the English-speaking areas must be significant. Will the Minister elaborate on that peculiar relationship?

Mr. Roberts: The amount that I specified as being spent per Welsh-speaking resident aged three years and over was £6·42. Obviously, that is derived from a totality of figures. It will not be beyond the wit of the hon. Gentleman to divide the total spent on the total population of Wales to discover how much is spent by the Government per person in Wales.

Mr. Best: How does my hon. Friend believe that the promotion of the Welsh language will be assisted by the most regrettable decision of Cymdeithas yr faith, the Welsh Language Society—

Mr. Wigley: Smear! Smear!

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend the Minister will draw his own conclusions from the fact that the cry of "Smear" came from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). How does my hon. Friend believe that it will assist the


Welsh language for Cymdeithas yr Iaith, the Welsh Language Society, to make this most regrettable invitation to Sinn Fein to visit Wales? Surely that should be condemned by everyone.

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that it will help at all. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend's remarks and to read that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), as president of Plaid Cymru, has also condemned the visit. With regard to the Gaelic language as spoken in the Republic, it was compulsory in education until 1974, when the compulsion was abolished. I can only warn members of Cymdeithas yr laith that in the words of Swift:
Ill company is like a dog, who dirts those most whom he loves best".

Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), caused offence by his ignorant intervention. Is not the consensus in Wales that we all want the language to prosper? Does the Minister believe, as we do, that there should be a new Welsh Language Act.

Mr. Roberts: It is easy to call for a new Welsh Language Act without giving substantial reasons for it. That is why we are consulting the public. We hope to achieve substantive views from the consultation as to whether a change is necessary, and why. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the Welsh language. He will be interested to know that the equivalent figure of support given by the Labour Government in their last year of office was £1·35 per Welsh-speaking person.

Mental Illness

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will review his Department's policy towards services for mental illness; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mark Robinson: As my right hon. Friend announced on 24 October 1986, we intend to publish a paper setting out the ways in which services for those suffering from mental illness can be further developed and improved.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that those who are engaged in the mental illness service in the social services, the Health Service and the voluntary sector will be disappointed by that reply, as they had hoped that the Minister would be able to announce some progress in this area? Will he ensure that the money available for the development of mental health services in Wales is substantially increased in view of the recent estimate by Clwyd, for example, that its strategy for adult mental illness will cost more than £6 million in revenue funds and £8 million in capital costs? Will he make an announcement soon of the development programme and on increasing the funding?

Mr. Robinson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are as anxious as he is to make progress on such matters. It is important to get the consultation right. We shall make our decision and publish the report as soon as we can. In the coming financial year £10 million will be available for mental handicap, and we intend to continue our commitment.

Mr. Harvey: While warmly welcoming the Government's strategy of getting the mentally ill back into

the community, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider the devastating impact on the local community of the closure of North Wales hospital? Will he consider providing Welsh Office funding for any viable proposal for the use of the building?

Mr. Robinson: Before we reach that stage, we must carry out the necessary consultation. We have not yet made a final decision.

Loft Insulation

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was available for loft insulation grants in Wales in 1986–87; and how much will be made available in 1987–88.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Bids by Welsh local authorities for the homes insulation scheme have been met in full. The sums allocated were £2·7 million for 1986–87 and £2·3 million for 1987–88.

Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister join me in pressing the Government to ensure that there will be no cuts in loft insulation grants, which would be a tremendous blow to energy conservation? Will the Minister press the Government to include draughtproofing as well as insulation in the schemes so that elderly people in receipt of supplementary benefit or housing benefit can be protected from the effects of severe cold?

Mr. Robinson: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that bids for 1987–88 have been met in full. I cannot go beyond that. If the Government plan any changes along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the announcement will be made in the appropriate place at the appropriate time.

Mr. Terlezki: What precautions is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that companies engaged in loft insulation work paid for by grants are reputable companies and not cowboys who do not do the job properly?

Mr. Robinson: We issue guidance to local authorities and ask them to pass that guidance to people who make inquiries of them.

Mr. Rowlands: When the Minister said that he had given the local authorities everything for which they had asked, was he aware that the Department responsible for such matters in England was planning to withdraw insulation grants from the overwhelming majority of Welsh homes? Is he aware that there will be no grants to improve loft insulation and to bring insulation up to an adequate level for the overwhelming majority of Welsh households?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the consultation which the Government are undertaking with regard to the better targeting of home insulation schemes. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

Agriculture

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next hopes to meet leaders of the farmers unions in Wales to discuss the effects of the recent decisions of the European Community Council of Ministers on Welsh agriculture.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I meet the leaders of the farmers unions in Wales regularly and frequently. I met the


chairman of the council of the National Farmers Union in Wales last week and I am attending the annual dinner of the NFU tomorrow evening.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great consternation among dairy farmers in Wales at the effects of the developments in relation to quota? In south Wales, especially, during the nine months from April last year until January this year, there was a loss of more than 7 million litres in milk quota. In view of that drastic effect—equivalent to the loss of 30 dairy farms in Wales—will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to buy milk quotas to form a quota bank and redistribute them to other farms in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The figure that the hon. Gentleman quotes represents only 0·48 per cent—less than one half of 1 per cent—of the total quota, allocated to holdings in Wales. There is a two-way flow of quota, which provides a very necessary flexibility in the administration of the quota scheme. The hon. Gentleman ought to hesitate long and hard before he tries to separate the arrangements for Wales from those for England and Wales, because Wales benefits enormously from participating in the England and Wales arrangements for milk.

Mr. Colvin: When my right hon. Friend meets leaders of farmers unions in Wales tomorrow night, will he tell them how much he welcomes the recent decision by the European Community to make intervention stocks available to provide free food for needy people? Did he see the report in The Sunday Times yesterday, which described the scheme as pie in the sky, and the remarks of our right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who said that the scheme is inadequate and ill thought out? Will my right hon. Friend please have early discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see how the scheme can be improved and how some of the bureaucracy can be removed, and to see that it is better publicised so that people know where to get help through what is, on the whole, a very worthwhile scheme?

Mr. Edwards: A scheme of this kind is no substitute for fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. This is a European scheme that has been put together rather hastily and it is undoubtedly causing administrative problems. We are distributing food through voluntary organisations that are long established in Britain and well equipped to do the work. We keep in close touch with them about mechanisms for distributing the food.

Mr. Ron Davies: Did the Council of Ministers have any proposals for the release of farmland for housing or monocultural forestry operations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the broad trailing over the weekend of the Government's proposals, there is widespread concern among environmentalists about what the Government are proposing? Is he further aware that anxiety is not confined to environmentalists, as people concerned with future employment prospects in rural areas in Wales appreciate that there can be no employment in, or financial justification for, what the Government are proposing? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to confirm that he is aware of these ALURE proposals, as they are described, and will he say whether, even at this late stage, he will try to exempt Wales from their implications?

Mr. Edwards: It is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman that he rushes to condemn proposals before he knows what they are. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is answering a question this afternoon, when he will set out the Government's intentions in this respect. We have a scheme on which we shall consult. Full details will be available later today. The scheme is for the development of farm woodlands, some relaxation on present planning arrangements and for measures to encourage further employment in the countryside. Surely the hon. Gentleman supports and welcomes that.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State confirm, or deny, reports in the national newspapers during the weekend that the Conservative party intends to take 85 per cent. of agricultural land out of production to build houses or for afforestation?

Mr. Edwards: The speculation is pure and unadulterated nonsense. I also observed that the chairman of the National Farmers Union has described the alliance's agricultural policy as a total disaster for British farming and the greatest catastrophe that it is likely to face this century.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern felt on this side of the House at the crisis facing Welsh farming? Will he consider pressing for a devaluation of the green pound, given that the currency is now 20 per cent. out of alignment? Will he also consider scrapping the £90 inspection charge, which is considered absurd by most farmers on whom it is inflicted?

Mr. Edwards: We are consulting on the inspection charge and will make an announcement in due course. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the green pound discrepancy. It will undoubtedly be one of the matters to be considered in the coming price fixing. He knows that there has already been one alteration in the green currencies. The proper time, however, to deal with the major issue to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention is during the weeks ahead as we approach the major price fixing.

Mr. John: Does the Secretary of State accept that we recognise the importance of what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will say about land use? By what means will the Minister do so? We would regard it as wholly unsatisfactory if he were to slip his announcement through by written answer.

Mr. Edwards: My right hon. Friend will be answering a parliamentary question today. [HON. MEMBERS: "A written question?"]

Mr. Raffan: Can my right hon. Friend explain why dairy inspections are to be charged for and why they will cost £90 for one visit every two years? My local farmers tell me that an inspector can easily cover eight farms in one day, and even then that inspectors tend to spend 15 minutes inspecting the dairy and 30 minutes having a cup of tea afterwards.

Mr. Edwards: The charges cover, not simply the visits, but the full range of tests and administration of the scheme. My hon. Friend will also know that most well-organised farms will probably need only one visit every two years, and in many cases even less frequent visits than


that. If he looks at almost any commercial organisation's charges for a visit of this type, he will regard these charges as modest.

Hypothermia

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths from hypothermia have been recorded in Wales during the period May 1979 to January 1987.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Between May 1979 and November 1986, the latest month for which information is available, the number of occasions in Wales where hypothermia appeared on a death certificate, irrespective of whether it was recorded as being the underlying cause of death, was 344.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful for that reply. Is it not frightening to think that deaths are increasing as a result of the Government"s policy? Is the Minister aware that although the Government talk about the £5 that they are giving to old-age pensioners, they are continually moving the goal posts for qualifying? Will the Minister look at the leading article on page 7 of the Western Mail, which deals with a constituent of mine? It was suggested that if my constituent had an insurance policy with a surrender value of more than £1,500 he would lose his chances of getting the £5 back. May I suggest to the Minister and the Front Bench—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Powell: I shall not be long, Mr. Speaker. Would it not have been far better for the Government to use their time on Friday 16 January to vote for free television licences for pensioners, instead of voting against them, so that pensioners could use the £58 to provide themselves with heating and extra nourishment? Instead, the Government adopt this beastly attitude.

Mr. Robinson: I am not sure what relevance the last part of that supplementary question had to hypothermia. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for hypothermia during the years of the Labour Government—it is most inadvisable to play politics with these figures—he will see that they increased every year. If I may refer him to a previous parliamentary question on deaths from hypothermia in winter, he will notice that the highest figure was in the last year of the Labour Government. With regard to the specific case in the Western Mail, I should point out that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If the hon. Gentleman writes to my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he will look into the case in depth.

Mr. Barry Jones: Deaths from hypothermia are distressing and should be decreasing. Is not the reason for their rise badly insulated, ill-repaired, housing stock in Wales, where 140,000 homes are deemed unfit for habitation? Are there not 20,000 unemployed construction workers and more than £190 million worth of renovation grants outstanding? Might not action here save lives next winter?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman refers to a rise in Wales, but the figures vary from year to year, and the figures for last year were down on the figures for the year before and also on those recorded in the last year of the Labour Government. The Government are doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do.

[Interruption.] I know that it is painful, but I remind him that under this Government £333 million has been spent renovating the private stock, whereas under the previous Labour Government only £57 million was spent.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Wales since May 1979.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Some 49,846 council dwellings were sold to sitting tenants in Wales between May 1979 and 30 September 1986. Taking into account sales by new towns and housing associations, over 55,000 public sector dwellings have been sold since May 1979.

Mr. Knox: What is my hon. Friend doing to draw the attention of the public to the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986? Does he expect that this will have a big effect on the figures in the future?

Mr. Robinson: I expect it to have an effect on figures in the future, because it increases the discount range on flats from 32 to 60 per cent. to 44 to 70 per cent., with discount occurring at twice the previous rate. This will protect purchasers from unexpectedly high service charges. There has been a reduction in discount repayment from five to three years. The Government will shortly mount a publicity campaign to draw the attention of tenants, particularly of flats, to their right to buy and to the changes resulting from the Housing and Planning Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

"Faith in the City"

Mr. Chapman: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the commissioners have yet reached a decision on the recommendation of the report "Faith in the City" that the commissioners should contribute £1 million per annum for 10 years to the General Synod's proposed urban fund; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): If legislation currently before the General Synod is approved both by the Synod and Parliament, the commissioners will consider sympathetically the recommendation that they should make available at least £1 million a year.

Mr. Chapman: As clergy stipends and pensions depend so much on the returns made by the Church Commissioners on their capital assets, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the commissioners will not sell off part of their assets to raise this £1 million for each of the next 10 years, if Parliament so wills it, but will encourage a special appeal, to which they will invite churchgoers and others to contribute?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The special appeal is not for me, and is a separate matter. On matters pertaining to the Church Commissioners, I can say that this money will not be raised out of capital, and it is seen as part of a general continuing process of evening out disparities between historic resources of different dioceses.

Mr. Frank Field: As the funds of the Church Commissioners are used primarily for salaries and


pensions, to what extent will salaries and pensions be reduced to meet this sum? To put that question another way, to what extent must the laity increase their giving to make sure that these cuts do not occur?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman is right. Any sums that Parliament authorises the commissioners to make, and it will be only when Parliament so authorises that this happens, must, by definition, leave fewer resources available for stipends and pensions. With a prudent investment policy, it will not be necessary for us to be talking about cuts.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am somewhat puzzled by his reply? Is not the money of the Church Commissioners primarily, if not wholly, to be used for the purpose of the Church? If the Church is to make enormous contributions to all kinds of other schemes, what will be left for the Church itself?

Sir William van Straubenzee: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I point out that it will be for the urban fund to allocate these moneys, not for the Church Commissioners. They will respond to the request if Parliament so authorises and the General Synod so decides.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I urge, through the hon. Gentleman, that the Church Commissioners should make that decision and contribution as urgently as possible? Will he also urge them to consider ways in which they might, as a matter of urgency, through the urban fund, support the schooling that is provided by the Church in urban areas? The hon. Gentleman may be able to comment on the fact that at this moment there is a growing, weekly crisis in the staffing of Church schools, caused in part by the lack of buildings and also by the lack of incremental and other opportunities. Could that be considered by the Church Commissioners, too?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The pace at which the Church Commissioners can move is dictated, first, by the corporate decision of the General Synod and, secondly, by Parliament. Only then will they lawfully be able to proceed. I am afraid that I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman by referring to individual projects. That is not the concern of the Church Commissioners, nor should it be. It will be the concern of the urban fund.

Assistant Curates

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East of 8 December, Official Report, column 13, what further consideration he has given to means of meeting a higher proportion of the expenses incurred by assistant curates.

Sir William van Straubenzee: It is the parish responsibility to reimburse the expenses incurred by assistant curates. To encourage parishes to meet these responsibilites, the commissioners have issued a newly revised booklet which offers guidelines on all aspects of clergy expenses. This has been sent to all dioceses and parishes.

Mr. Bruinvels: Although I know that my hon. Friend shares the concern that assistant curates are not having all their expenses met in full—indeed, I believe that 16 per

cent. of all expenses are not being met—will he reassure me that the "Parochial Expenses of the Clergy" booklet, which is available, is sent to every treasurer of the parochial church councils and that the PCC responsibility is made quite clear? Our assistant curates are having a difficult time at the moment and, because of all the unpaid work that they do, the sooner their expenses are met in full the better.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I think that very vigorous action has been taken along the lines that my hon. Friend has urged, and I am obliged to him for drawing attention to that matter. The truth is that every legitimate expense that is not met means that the stipend is thereby reduced.

Small Businesses

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the commissioners have made any investments in the provision of premises suitable for small businesses in deprived areas.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir. The commissioners have recently completed a workshop and studio development in the London borough of Hackney. This has been specially designed to meet the needs of small businesses, which will be able to rent space on flexible terms. It is very much hoped that this development will help promote new jobs and new business in the area.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend, and those whom he represents, on that answer. May I ask ham what kind of people will be taking up those premises? Have the Church Commissioners any plans to extend this principle to other parts of the nation, and if so, where?

Sir William van Straubenzee: There is a mix of tenants in this development, including printers, interior designers and photographic firms. I am also glad to say that TOC H, Church Action for the Unemployed and the Bridge Project Trust, which is a Christian organisation helping the unemployed, have taken space in the building. There is no immediate plan for another such development, because each individual case must be looked at very carefully. However, I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's commendation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, congratulate the Church Commissioners on their initiative, but may I draw the hon. Member's attention to projects that are being considered south of the River Thames by Church Action for the Unemployed and other such organisations, such as Headstart, with the Cambridge University Mission? Perhaps the Church Commissioners would look at those projects as a way of alleviating the problem, through a form of lay ministry, which has been much appreciated when initiatives have been taken.

Sir William van Straubenzee: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw my attention at any time to any specific project, I shall be very happy to pass on the details. Meanwhile, I am sure that the House knows, in a different part of the country altogether and on a different scale, of the Metro Centre in Gateshead. That is not a small business. It involves the employment of an additional 6,000 people and is making a major contribution to easing the unemployment problems in that part of the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the unemployment totals and percentages for (a) Wales and (b) Clwyd at the latest date for which such figures are available and for May 1979; and if he will give the percentage increase.

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what were the unemployment totals and percentages for (a) Wales and (b) Clwyd at the latest date for which such figures are available and for May 1979; and if he will give the percentage increase.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 19 January. No more recent figures are available.

Mr. Jones: The unemployment figures in Wales, and Clwyd in particular, are truly distressing. Against that background, will the right hon. Gentleman back to the hilt the application by British Aerospace for £750 million worth of launch aid over six years for the new family of Airbus A330-A340? I want the right hon. Gentleman to fight his corner in Cabinet. The project needs Government cash and British Aerospace does not want City cash with strings. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if British Aerospace withdraws from Airbus Industrie the United Kingdom will lose its capability for civil aircraft production? May I remind the Secretary of State that 4,000 aerospace jobs exist at Broughton in my constituency, where many hundreds of people make the wings of the Airbus. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say without any shadow of doubt that he will fight his corner in Cabinet for a great industry in Wales.

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that unemployment in Wales has fallen in eight out of the last nine months. British Aerospace will be amazed at his assertion that it does not want City finance. I think that it will reject that assertion out of hand. I note what he says about the merits of this proposal. The Government will consider all those arguments in the appropriate way and make an announcement at the appropriate time.

Dr. Marek: For once in his life will the Secretary of State answer a question and tell my hon. Friend whether he will fight for Wales in Cabinet? Is the right hon. Gentleman already thinking of his future life in the City after he leaves the House?

Mr. Edwards: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when I think there is a good case, I fight for it. It is quite clear from the many things that have been said in recent weeks that, whatever criticisms may be made of me, no one has argued that I do not do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Admission Orders

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many admission orders were issued for the Strangers Gallery in each of the past three years; of those issued to

hon. Members and right hon. Members, what was the percentage take-up; and if there are any plans to change the arrangements for ticket allocation.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The number of admission orders issued for the Strangers' Gallery over the past three years was 134,160 in 1986, 140,527 in 1985, and 141,868 in 1984. The percentage take-up of those orders issued to hon. Members for the same three years was 52·7 per cent., 48·6 per cent., and 53·5 per cent. respectively. I have no plans for changing the arrangements for the allocation of tickets to hon. Members.

Mr. Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the way in which the allocation of admission orders is undertaken, especially as it appears that 47 per cent. of hon. Members do not take up their orders? May I ask him to consider the possibility of hon. Members who know that it is their allocation day writing in and applying for tickets in order to ensure that there are no empty areas in the Strangers' Gallery? Other hon. Members who are not in the list for that day could apply for the tickets, so that the House is properly supported at all times.

Mr. Biffen: The present system has the merit of being relatively simple and everybody gets a chance to use his ticket if he wishes. Of course many tickets are returned, but they are eventually allocated. Half an hour is allowed before that process takes place and that often gives rise to the impression that the Galleries are far more empty when in fact they are temporarily under-used.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does it seem right to the Leader of the House that there should be space up there in the Galleries and behind me when there is a queue of people outside waiting to come into the House?

Mr. Biffen: That raises a totally different set of propositions from those put by my hon. Friend. It is Monday afternoon and it would not be wise for me to go down that path so early in the week.

Accommodation

Mr. Greenway: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many offices in the Palace of Westminster are allocated (a) to hon. Members, (b) to hon. Members' secretaries, (c) to parliamentary staff and (d) others; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: The current distribution within that part of the Palace of Westminster allocated to the House of Commons is: hon. Members 273 offices, with 55 desks for hon. Members' secretaries on the lower ground floor; parliamentary staff 91 offices, and other organisations 31 offices.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the offices of some hon. Members are so far away that they have to open their mail in the corridors or while sitting on the floor? That happens sometimes because there are so many people occupying the seats. That is distressing. Does he think that it would be helpful to hon. Members from different parties if their secretaries were not in the same room? Does he think that the secretaries of Members from only one party should occupy a room? Would that be helpful?

Mr. Biffen: As to the first part of the question, that is certainly going down memory lane. That is just what I did


more than 20 years ago and I do not think that my mail suffered thereby. As to my hon. Friend's second point, I believe that the authorities do their utmost to accommodate those hon. Members who want their secretaries to be in rooms occupied only by those of similar party affiliation. Some hon. Members favour a different system. I believe that, on the whole, we cater for the varying tastes in this matter.

Mr. Heffer: Hear, hear. My wife is with two Tories and she is quite happy.

Mr. Biffen: I shall take that as wholly unsolicited testimony to the virtue of Conservative Members.

Mr. Simon Hughes: What is the latest target date for the opening of the next set of offices which are being constructed on the site next to the Palace?

Mr. Biffen: About 30 secretaries are expected to be housed in I Cannon Row, which should be available in 1988. As the hon. Gentleman may appreciate, and as has been frequently stated, it is hoped that phase 1 of the Bridge street site, which will provide accommodation for 60 Members of Parliament and 100 secretaries, will be completed in 1990.

Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend able to say how many bedrooms there are in the Palace, the use to which they are put and how often they are used?

Mr. Biffen: I am not able to answer that question without notice. I think that that is a question that merits being considered in its own right.

Recycled Paper

Mr. Janner: asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken to promote the use of recycled paper in the House of Commons.

Mr. Biffen: The Services Committee decided in February 1982 that available papers containing recycled waste were not acceptable for Members' stationery. Since then HMSO has regularly reviewed the available paper containing waste, but has not yet discovered any of a quality superior to that previously rejected by the Committee.

Mr. Janner: How many trees a year does the right hon. Gentleman consider would be saved if we were to use recycled paper for the mountain of paper that we go o through? Should we not he setting an example to the environmentalists?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot answer the first part of the question without a great deal of notice. As to the second part, I guarantee that the complaints of those who believe that we should be corresponding on stationery of the highest quality would far outweigh the voices of those who are promoting environmental considerations.

Mr. Latham: If my right hon. Friend wants to save forests, why does he not start with the Order Paper? Six

sides of paper in tomorrow's Order Paper are filled with identical questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Cannot the names be one after the other? In that way, they might all be on one side of paper.

Mr. Biffen: Prime Minister's Question Time is of such great value to the Conservative party, particularly during the pre-election period, that I would wish to do nothing that would minimise its success.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that. far from using recycled paper, a. return to parchment might save us all from having to endure a vast weight of paper?

Mr. Biffen: That is the most socially constructive question that I have heard this afternoon.

Mr. Fairbairn: Whether it be parchment or recycled paper, will my right hon. Friend ensure that none is used in the bedrooms in the Palace?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of that thoughtful and well-directed question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Rail Operations

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends next to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail operations in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend met the chairman on 25 November arid has no further plans to do so at present.

Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State will know from his personal experience of the reduction in services to west Wales, such as the ending of the sleeper service. Will he ensure that west Wales is not marginalised in the railway network and that, for example, the Swansea to Cardiff line is not downgraded by British Rail?

Mr. Roberts: These are operational matters for British Rail. British Rail is to make an announcement shortly about InterCity services. British Rail is to improve the Red Dragon executive service from Swansea from May. I understand that, in BR's opinion, there is no market for late evening services after 6.30 pm from Swansea.

Sir Raymond Gower: Would it not boost railway operations in Wales if the Margam pit were now to be built? Does my hon. Friend think that the intervention of the National Union of Mineworkers' president is rather regrettable, hasty and should have been assessed by the Welsh miners?

Mr. Roberts: All industrial developments in Wales will be helpful to British Rail because they will involve increased passenger traffic and freight. I should not like to comment on the attitude of the NUM, but I notice that there is a difference between what Mr. Scargill said and what was said by the local NUM leader in south Wales about that project.

Blood Bank, Gloucester

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the launching today of a private blood bank in Gloucester.
It is clearly a specific matter, because two property developers, who have no experience of or expertise in the health field, are setting up a private blood bank on the third floor of a warehouse in Gloucester docks. However amateurish the outfit, those concerned are certainly specific about their charges, which are an initial fee of £400 for storing up to six pints of frozen blood per client and a subsequent charge of £160 a year.
It is a vital issue because the operation and efficiency of the National Blood Transfusion Service could be damaged, because a private blood bank will offer a second-class service to clients and will merely exploit and cash in on the present bandwagon of AIDS fears.
It is important, because this private firm is seeking to convey a false impression of guaranteed safety, when there are major problems involved in the long-term storage of frozen blood and its reconstitution, and when six pints are wholly inadequate for major operations, long-term treatment or following major accidents. It is important that patients are made aware of the huge and perhaps insuperable problems of the rapid transport of their own blood supplies if accidents occur hundreds of miles away. The delay could do far more damage than any conceivable risk from using blood supplies from the regional blood transfusion centre.
The matter is urgent because this private venture is starting today, it has not gained planning permission, it is wholly unregulated, so that contaminated blood could slip through, and it can offer no guarantee of safety. This might exacerbate our problems with AIDS rather than solve them.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly request that you find time for a debate on this crucial matter of public health at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the launching today of a private blood bank in Gloucester.
I do not underestimate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for debate under Standing Order No. 20, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take first the point of order from Mr. Campbell-Savours. He gave me notice of it.

Comptroller and Auditor General

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking your ruling, which I believe will be a precedent, on the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey, as the recipient of information in his role as an Officer of Parliament and your responsibility in protecting his rights as an Officer of the House.
Under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General was made an Officer of the House and has the same status in our proceedings as the Clerk of the House, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw. However, he has a special role, because he straddles Parliament and the Executive, having been given, under section 8 of the 1983 Act, a statutory right of access to Government Departments for the purposes of certification and audit and for value-for-money examinations. Apart from the Parliamentary Commissioner—the ombudsman—he is the only Officer of Parliament with a statutory right of access.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's statutory right of access allows his access even to the most secret areas of Government expenditure, such as every area of the major defence projects statement, including defence projects of the highest possible classification of national security. The only area to which he is denied access is expenditure covered by the secret Vote of about £80 million annually.
On 23 January Duncan Campbell wrote an article in the New Statesman headlined "Parliamentary bypass operation." His case was that Parliament was not informed of major expenditure on the Zircon project and that rules on notification to Public Accounts Committee Chairmen of major defence projects—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into too much detail. I should like a point of order on which I can rule. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is raising an important matter, but what is the point of order for me?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am being as brief as I can in laying out exactly the points on which the point of order is based.
The article suggested that the rules on the notification to PAC Chairmen of major defence projects of a national security nature where potential costs exceed £250 million had been broken.
The allegation was immediately denied by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, who said:
I am told that the matter is still at a preliminary stage and that nothing like the sums that were referred to have been incurred."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 594.]
The allegation was also denied by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who said in a debate on the security services that no programme expenditure had been committed and that only expenditure on project definition had been committed. The allegation has also been repeatedly denied by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me in these matters? The hon. Gentleman is raising matters of debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am deliberating not doing that. I have to set out exactly what is happening. I am not expressing any view or opinion, but am simply saying what is on the record as I build my case.
The Comptroller and Auditor General said in a National Audit Office statement on 22 January that the NAO had been monitoring the Ministry of Defence project throughout its preliminary stages and that, as yet, there was no commitment to a major project by defence standards.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that if those statements were incorrect, the Comptroller and Auditor General had been misled, in which case the Ministry of Defence would be in default of its statutory obligations to Parliament, as it would be replying to an Officer of the House, the Comptroller and Auditor General having asked questions. That would be a grave and unprecedented development. It would be different from what happened with Chevaline, because at that time, before the National Audit Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General was not an Officer of Parliament.
The question is whether the Comptroller and Auditor General was misled as an Officer of Parliament and whether Parliament itself was, therefore, misled. Mr. Campbell says that Zircon's costs were about £500 million, and he says that he will give me an affidavit supporting that statement. Mr. Roger Stanyard, who edits the "Interspace" newsletter, says that he was told in the autumn of 1984 that the project cost was £500 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters which the hon. Gentleman could raise in a debate. He must put a point of order that I can answer. Will he come to it now, please?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am almost precisely there. Mr. Stanyard said that the cost was £500 million and that he had been told that the costs were hidden within the

Ministry of Defence's defence procurement budget. Messrs. Freeman, Leppard and Davis of The Sunday Times also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is abusing his point of order. I ask him now to come immediately to his point of order. I remind him that this is a private Members' day, and he is taking up the time of other Back Benchers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You might say, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers' answers to hon. Members are not a matter for you. I put it to you that when Ministers provide documentary evidence to the Comptroller and Auditor General to enable him to carry out audit certification and value for money examinations, Ministers' replies to him are a matter for you, because he is an Officer of the House of Commons— [Interruption .] I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reply that Ministers give to the Comptroller and Auditor General are matters for you because he is an Officer of the House.
There is a divergence of opinion. The Ministry of Defence says that the project has not incurred a large amount of money, but three people outside the House say they have been told by Ministry of Defence officials that the project incurred several hundred million pounds. The Comptroller and Auditor General supports the Government's position at this stage. I believe that it is incumbent upon you, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy yourself—defending the interests of Parliament— that the Comptroller and Auditor General is being correctly informed about the amount of money that the Government have spent on the project. My point of order is to ask you whether you will do precisely that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman a one word answer—yes, I will. Well, that is three words.

Parliamentary Procedure

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that there is a problem about the use of prime time and that this is seen by many as an abuse of the emergency procedure. I understand that, but the problem is that we have no form of emergency questioning under which we can ask a Minister such as the Lord Advocate exactly why he did not go along with the law of Scotland and consult the feelings of the victim. The victim in this case is a major Government Department—the Foreign Office. Why did the Lord Advocate not listen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise a point of order which I can answer. I think that I can help him at this point by saying that he will have that opportunity on Wednesday this week when the Solicitor-General for Scotland will be answering questions.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon during Welsh Question Time I asked the Secretary of State for Wales a supplementary question about weekend press reports that the Government intend to relax control over agricultural land. The issue received wide publicity at the weekend and in this morning's press. The reports indicate clearly that the Government intend to release agricultural land for housing and afforestation. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State, in his reply to me, refused to answer my question on the ground that his right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter was raised last Thursday as a continuation of Question Time. I heard what the Secretary of State for Wales said, and I read what was said in the newspapers. It is not a matter for me. It is a matter not of order, but of argument.

Mr. Ron Davies: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have a valid point of order. The Secretary of State for Wales refused to answer my question on the ground that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was to reply to a parliamentary question. The Minister is in his place today.
My point of order is that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has arranged a press conference for 4 o'clock today. He has also arranged a planted written question to leak details of the Government's proposals. Would it not be more appropriate for you to make this facility available for the Minister to come to the House today to make his views known?

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are patently not matters for me. Questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be taken on 19 February, when these matters can be raised.

Mr. Brynmor John: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order and it must be related directly to my responsibilities.

Mr. John: It is inconceivable that so important a matter as a new Government land use policy should be slipped through by means of a written answer, with a press conference hearing of it before any hon. Member of this House has been provided with the information. Has the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food given any sign that he wishes to make an oral statement? If he cannot make it now because it is a private Member's day, will he say whether he will make it at 7 o'clock?

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I have heard the points made by the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I have heard also what you said, Mr. Speaker, about the need to keep within the confines of your responsibilities. It is true that it was my intention to answer a question this afternoon on a package of measures for alternative land use and the rural economy, but I was especially aware that today was private Member's time, and I remember from a previous incarnation how unpopular Ministers are when they intrude upon it.
I am in the hands of the House. If you, Mr. Speaker, within your responsibilities, can find an opportunity for


me to give the answer now which I would have given later, I shall be happy to take it. I am happy to do that now. If, alternatively, you think that it might be more helpful to have a discussion through what I believe are called the usual channels, I would he happy for that to be done, or for you to find me a facility to answer the question. I am perfectly happy to make my answer available to the House at any time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me to find time for the right hon. Member. If he wishes to make a statement, no doubt he will have an opportunity to do so tomorrow afternoon.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment are issuing statements today without even giving hon. Members written answers. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to give a written answer to the House when there is not a written question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not an innovation. There is a question on the Order Paper. It has been done before. I repeat that if the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wishes to make a statement, no doubt that should be arranged through the usual channels. That is the best way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Alan Williams: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say more than I have done.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This really is an abnormal position. Your role, Mr. Speaker, as you well appreciate, is to protect the interests of Back-Bench Members. It must be virtually unprecedented for a Minister to refuse to answer an oral question, which always has priority in this House, because an answer will be given later in the day to a pursuant question which is not even on the Order Paper. If the Minister is trying to slide his answer through the House, surely the least that he can do is come to the House at 7 o'clock tonight, not tomorrow, and make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was not in the House when I was on my feet. It is untrue that I refused to answer the question. I answered the question, but said that an answer would also be given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with the matter any more. The hon. Gentleman is a Back-Bench Member, and he will understand that I have a duty to protect the interests of Back-Benchers. This is patently a private Members' day.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing more that I can say. This is a matter of argument and I have no doubt that it will be discussed through the usual channels and resolved tomorrow.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it only if it is a matter on which I can rule, and not a continuation of the discussion.

Mr. Davies: We have now had the unprecedented spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food in effect making a statement but denying that he was doing so. As I understand it, the rules of the House are such that if a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, hon. Members have the opportunity of questioning him. The Minister has in effect made a statement and I am submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members now have the right to question him.

Mr. Speaker: The best way of resolving the issue on a private Members' day is for the matter to be discussed through the usual channels. I have no doubt that that will lead to a resolution of the difficulty.

Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing committee on Statutory Instruments, 8m—[Mr. Durant.]

Ministerial Statements

Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret to say that my point of order relates to the matter that was previously before the House, which you said was one of argument. Would you not consider it to be a matter of propriety as well as one of argument, Mr. Speaker? Do you think that the House should be subjected to a procedure that means that no statement is made to it when a press conference is to be held at 4 o'clock? Is such a practice not to be deprecated?

Mr. Speaker: What the right hon. Gentleman says—he has great experience in this place—may be correct, but it is not a matter of order on which I can rule. The best way for the House to proceed is to allow the matter to be discussed through the usual channels. I am certain that that will lead to a resolution.

Mr. Greville Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised this specific issue when a previous Government did exactly the same thing.

Mr. Eric Forth: A Labour Government?

Mr. Janner: No. It was done by a previous Conservative Government. Your predecessor. Mr. Speaker, ruled that, though he was not able to say that the practice was contrary to the rules of order, he thought that it was a thoroughly unworthy practice that the House should be treated in a way that meant that a press conference was held prior to the making of a statement in the House. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, will you repeat the deprecation now? It is surely monstrous that the Government should continue to behave in this way.

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that Ministers frequently give information to the House by way of written answers to questions. There is a new feature today, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food has offered to make a statement at a different time, and I hope that that will happen.

Nuclear Waste

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the report prepared for the County Councils of Humberside, Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire regarding the disposal of low level nuclear waste; notes the coalition's view based on an international comparative study that; (i) there are better technical alternatives than those presented by UK Nirex for the disposal of such wastes which may also be used for intermediate level waste; (ii) the overall cost of alternatives may be greater than for a shallow repository but would be less than one per cent. of the costs of nuclear electricity generation; and (iii) if public acceptance is to be gained a truly convincing solution to the disposal of low and intermediate level nuclear waste must be found; and urges Her Majesty's Government to give full consideration to this report before final decisions are taken regarding the disposal of nuclear waste.
I have been a Member of this place for the past eight years and it was something of a surprise for me, having gone through the automatic, routine mechanism of signing a ballot paper on just about every available occasion during the past eight years, to find that I had drawn No. 1 position in the ballot for today's private Members' motions. Probably few Members on either side of the House were surprised when I decided to give the House the opportunity of debating nuclear waste disposal.
In February 1986 my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science and who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced his intention to select four sites for test drilling for the disposal of low and, at that stage, intermediate-level waste. We had a short debate that arose on the Easter Adjournment thanks to the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. There was a second debate which lasted for about three hours, which was a short time for the many who wanted to contribute to it, when a special development order was placed before the House. This is the first major opportunity that the House has had to have what I hope will be a constructive and leisurely debate.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, and my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary here today. From my knowledge of their efforts, they have been as vigorous in their representations on behalf of their constitutents as I have on behalf of mine. The fact that they are members of the Government has not inhibited them in any way in their efforts to press for the best interests of their constituents. I am delighted to see them.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friends whom he mentioned, in favour of the generation of electricity by nuclear power? If so, his arguments against dumping are, to put it mildly, completely untenable.

Mr. Brown: That is a fair challenge. If the right hon. Gentleman had been watching Yorkshire Television last Monday, he would have seen me conducting an interview with Mr. Arthur Scargill, when we discussed that very question. I said that the case for further nuclear power

generation had not yet been proven, and that until the Government had received a mandate at the next general election I felt that it would be prudent for them not to proceed with further installation of new nuclear power stations. I said that the Government should not do so until the electorate had at least had the opportunity of confirming that decision.
I am concerned not only about the proposals that NIREX has made for the South Killingholme site in my constituency but about the situation at Fulbeck, Elstow and Bradwell. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who cannot be with us for the debate because he has duties in America, has represented those in the county of Essex who are concerned about the selection of Bradwell as a site. He has also made representations on behalf of my right hon Friend the Patronage Secretary. I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning to the letter written to him on 4 February by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, who was kind enough to send me a copy. He asked whether I would draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that
the geological conditions which exist at Bradwell do not begin to meet Nirex's own criteria. We are in no doubt that the testing now going on will confirm this. That is why we did not object to the testing taking place. This … is quite apart from the fact that the area has been subjected to flooding and earthquakes.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that
the road and rail communications do not satisfy the criteria laid down by Nirex. The transport links arc totally inadequate for the purpose of transporting waste to the site.
This also applies to South Killingholme. My right hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that there are large centres of population in the Bradwell area. Surely it must be utterly wrong to site a nuclear waste disposal facility in an area that has large centres of population.
I concur absolutely with the representations of my right hon. Friend, who was speaking also on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of those representations when he replies to that letter.
I should welcome it very much if Essex county council joined the coalition of Humberside, Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire because the council would then have at its disposal the advantage of professional consultants who produced an excellent report, a copy of which has been sent to all hon. Members. The report is entitled "The Disposal of Radioactive Waste". It draws on the experiences of those three county councils when they recently visited Sweden, West Germany and France. The report was prepared for the coalition of county councils by Environmental Resources Limited, under the guidance of Mr. Peter Floyd. It is an outstanding report. I think that Essex county council would agree with its conclusions. I hope that it will be encouraged to join the other three county councils.
I want first to skim through the report in the hope that other hon. Members who will take part in the debate will also have had the opportunity of reading the report and will be able to refer to it. I want to outline the background of the report and the conclusions reached by the county councils. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), my


hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham will support those conclusions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was kind enough to join us for the press launch of the document just two weeks ago and I am delighted to welcome him to the debate today. He was present at the press conference when the document was launched on 21 January alongside members of Lincolnshire. Humberside and Bedfordshire county councils.
The coalition formed by the three county councils decided, on the basis of the evidence that they had studied from the report of the all-party Select Committee on the Environment relating to nuclear waste last year, that they should go to Sweden, West Germany and France to study how other nations were tackling the problem. They were encouraged to do that because the Select Committee report claimed that the technology for nuclear waste disposal in the United Kingdom was a long way behind the experience and expertise in the subject in other countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), the former Secretary of State for the Environment who originally announced the policy, also acknowledged that technology and study in this country was far behind that of other European countries.
The foreword of the report states:
The Coalition was most impressed with the committed and far-sighted view which the Swedish people take of radioactive waste disposal. The Swedes have spared neither effort nor expense in coming to terms with the problem. Everyone in the delegation was deeply impressed by the sheer size and vision of the Forsmark undertaking. It is clear that the Swedish authorities have decided to pay the greatest attention to deep-seated public concern and have come up with a demonstrably acceptable and safe solution.
The foreword goes on to draw attention to the coalition's findings in West Germany. It states:
In West Germany, too, it was apparent that the anxieties of the people were taken very seriously. The West German authorities see it as their task to accept and allay these fears—not to dismiss them with contempt.
Those are two examples from Europe which we should follow. The foreword continues:
The French method of disposal was considered the least impressive of the three seen by the delegation and could not be recommended for the UK. In fact, although the UK Government has suggested that the Coalition should see this method as an example of what was proposed by NIREX, it was so demonstrably different that no comparison could be made.
The foreword concludes:
The Coalition delegation learned salutary and important lessons from their tour of Europe. They returned convinced that the British Government has not yet addressed itself seriously to the problems of radioactive waste disposal. There has been no proper evaluation of the alternative methods of disposing of low level radioactive waste. The method adopted, shallow burial, has been rejected in other countries. Public opinion is seen as something to be overcome in the UK, rather than as the basis for policy formulation.
The Government now has an absolute duty to respond to these concerns.

Dr. Michael Clark: My hon. Friend has referred to the example set by various countries on the continent. If NIREX was to follow the examples that he has listed, would he withdraw all his objections to a low-level disposal site in this country?

Mr. Brown: If Her Majesty's Government can say through my hon. Friend the Minister during the course of the debate that the experience at Forsmark had convinced

them that that was the best way of disposing not only of intermediate-level waste but also of low and very low-level nuclear waste, I would accept that the problem of public opinion would have been dealt with, that the concern of public opinion would have been substantially allayed and I would be very much more inclined to accept such a proposal.
I do not believe that there is a great difference in the costs involved. A figure of £125 million has been quoted as the cost of the Forsmark system. When we consider all the costs— and NIREX has not been able to give the total cost of its proposal—I do not believe that the cost of £125 million, the equivalent cost of Forsmark, is a price that we cannot afford to pay. If that kind of expenditure was able to convince hon. Members, myself and my constituents— who at present are deeply concerned about the method of disposal— I believe that that money would be well worth spending. If the Government can announce a change of policy recognising, as I of course recognise, that low-level waste arises and must be disposed of, that may satisfy me. If the Labour party gains office on the basis of a policy involving decommissioning nuclear power stations, there would be even more nuclear waste for disposal. I do not deny that the problem exists. Nuclear waste exists and must be disposed of. No one disagrees with that.

Sir Patrick Wall: My hon. Friend has referred to additional costs. Would not the sterilisation of industrial land, certainly at South Killingholme and probably in the other areas, cost less than the amount required to follow the German or the Swedish system?

Mr. Brown: That is a very fair point. If we include the cost— to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) has referred—of losing industrial development on prime industrial land, land required by the county of Humberside for industrial purposes to provide jobs, the opportunity cost is even greater. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley has reminded me that Humberside county council commissioned a report recently which has now been published. It was undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand. The report suggested that the alternative uses for the South Killingholme site were very important because it is such prime industrial land. Indeed, Nissan considered the site for its car factory a few years ago. The site is surrounded by industrial and chemical factories and oil refineries which are job-creating organisations. If that land is sterilised it will kill the prospect of future jobs. There is no doubt that the opportunity cost of not using that land and making it a nuclear waste dump would be tremendous.
The Swedish experience outlined in the county council coalition report shows a much better way of disposal. It ensures that nuclear waste is not disposed of in centres of population. I am aware that the site proposed in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is surrounded by an area in which many people live. Bedfordshire is a very densely populated county. It is absolutely wrong that nuclear waste dumps should be sited in areas of high population.
The problem of disposal is one that we will have to face. However, we do not have to face it immediately. The Flowers commission stated 10 years ago that there is no urgency at the moment. Although Drigg is unsatisfactory, that site will be available for some years yet. It is important


to use this time to get the right ideas and to draw on the experiences abroad. We must consider the experience in the United States where there have been shallow burial facilities which the United States Government are now closing because those facilities do not meet the Government's criteria.
We are out of line. As other countries do their best to allay public fears and meet public objections, our Government are intent simply on saying that they will try to meet public opinion if they can, but if they cannot, too bad.
I have not yet persuaded my hon. Friend the Minister to change his policy, but I have not given up hope. I am grateful for the way in which he responded to detailed questions asked by me, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Member of Mid-Bedfordshire. We put to him a range of detailed points on which we need undertakings. I make it plain to my hon. Friend the Minister that I recognise that he is unlikely to change his policy as a result of this debate alone, but all those affected by this terrible problem want him eventually to change his policy.
We have now reached the stage where NIREX is at all four sites. Last year we had the problems with court injunctions, which was the most heavy-handed way of treating my constituents and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those people have lost confidence in Parliament and believe that it does not listen to them. Although I do not like people protesting and do not condone people breaking the law, I believe that those people thought that Parliament had let them down. NIREX was running all over the place, throwing injunctions towards my innocent constituents and those of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in a most unfortunate way. I hope that that will not happen again and that if NIREX is intent on mending its ways in terms of public relations, it will not run to the courts to support its efforts.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House what the likely completion date will be? How long will NIREX take to evaluate its findings and when will the blight be lifted from at least three of the four sites? A great many people in four counties are desperately worried, so can my hon. Friend tell us what progress has been made and the likely time scale? When will he tell the House who has drawn the unlucky short straw? Whoever draws that short straw, I shall continue to try to change Government policy. Whether I and my constituents are lucky or unlucky, I will not let the issue go away.
My hon. Friend and other Ministers at the Department of the Environment have said that NIREX will submit one or two proposed sites— I want some clarification on whether it will be one or two—to a public inquiry. If only one site is chosen, I presume that there will be only one inquiry, but if NIREX seeks planning permission for two sites, will there be public inquiries in respect of both?
Most importantly, what will be the scope of the public inquiry? Last year, my hon. Friend the Minister explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham that the inspector would have powers to call evidence on whatever aspect he wished to investigate, but I want the Minister's undertaking that he will ask the inspector to consider not

just the planning aspect but evidence relating to safety and to alternative methods that might be better. The scope of the inquiry is one of the most important safeguards and reassurances that he could give to those who live in the constituency that will draw the short straw. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham has asked me to invite the Minister to consider the scope of the inquiry, and we believe that it is essential to have a formal commitment that, in the event of the inspector not being satisfied on safety grounds, the Government will not proceed with this method of disposal.
My hon. Friend and I also believe that compensation should be made available now for those who cannot sell their houses. NIREX has announced the circumstances in which it will pay compensation to those who are affected because they live in the site nominated by NIREX after it has completed its test drilling. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to letters that I have received from constituents who cannot sell their houses for the amount which they would have received about 12 months ago. I have already shown the correspondence to my hon. Friend, and I hope that he can say something about it.
I received a letter dated 4 December from Mr. T. A. Pollard, who said:
Dear Mr. Brown, I am writing to you as my 'sitting' Member of Parliament to ask your help in registering my protest with NIREX and the appropriate agencies. Because of the NIREX operation and subsequent adverse publicity I have found my house has not been only difficult to sell, but appears to have declined in value. Please find enclosed a copy of my letter concerning this problem which I have sent to NIREX, and to the Prime Minister … I would be very grateful for any help, aid, or even advice which you may be able to give at this time. As I have pointed out to NIREX these things may be very small and even insignificant matters to them, but to the ordinary family they can have a very considerable effect. I will point out that I have agreed to sell at the figure of £17,500 … in order to move away from a potential menace which may blight the lives of many more people in the future, but I should still be a member of your constituency.
I wrote to NIREX asking, "What about this?", and the managing directore replied, in a curt letter dated 5 January, as follows:
Dear Mr. Brown, I have your letter of 17 December regarding Mr. Pollard, and enclose a copy of a letter which has been sent to Mr. Pollard. As you can gather from that letter the property market in South Humberside, which even before any indication of NIREX's presence was not very healthy, has not substantially changed since our announcement in February 1986. Mr. Brooke-Taylor's letter"—
that is the letter from NIREX to my constitutent—
sets out the two sets of circumstances under which NIREX will compensate people. We believe that further involvement in the property market would only cause problems, rather than resolve them.
A few days later, I received a letter from another constituent, Mr. D. Humberstone. He said:
Dear Mr. Brown, After 15 years with the same employer I was forced onto the unemployment register by an industrial accident. Following an operation I was advised not to return to work. I decided to start a business of my own and put in an offer on a club and restaurant. I remortgaged my bungalow"—
which is in South Killingholme, as was Mr. Pollard's home—
as security against the business. My bungalow was valued at £45,950 in 1983 … I estimated to the bank that my bungalow was worth in the region of £47,000 to £48,000 so suitable overdraft facilities and a loan was duly arranged. To my and the bank's horror the valuation was £37,500 (see enclosed valuation).


We should remember that NIREX said in its letter to me of 5 January that there was no sign that its presence had changed the position substantially since February 1986.
We also have the report from Whitegates estate agency, a reputable firm in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Under the heading "Situation and Amenities", it states:
Are there any adverse features which might limit marketability? Property values in South Killingholme have recently been adversely affected by the possibility of a low level nuclear waste dump site being developed close to South Killingholme. The plans to develop the site have not yet been approved but its proposal has adversely affected property value levels and the length of time houses for sale remain on the market.
I cannot think that we need clearer evidence that Mr. Pollard and Mr. Humberstone cannot sell their houses because of the presence of NIREX contractors. NIREX denies that, but I do not think that we need more evidence than the estate agent's report. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary have constituents in the same circumstances.
In a parliamentary question I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government
if he will introduce a compensation scheme for those householders in the South Killingholme area"—
that could equally apply to Elstow, Fulbeck or Bradwell—
who cannot now sell their houses at normal valuation prices in cases where the decline in value can now be directly attributed"—
as the surveyors' report that I have quoted shows—
to the presence of contractor test drilling for the suitability of a nuclear waste dump and where surveyors' reports on such properties indicate that the test drilling has contributed to a fall in market value; and if he will make a statement.
I said earlier that my hon. Friend has, within the limits of
a policy with which I disagree, tried to be as helpful as he can. His reply was not unhelpful. It said:
Compensation policy, both in the areas of the four potential disposal sites and at any site which might eventually be selected, is primarily a matter for UK NIREX Ltd. The company has already announced measures which are intended to maintain the level of house prices locally. NIREX is also considering the possibility of further measures, which it is discussing with my right hon. Friend."— [Official
Report, 26 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 43–44.]
It may not be possible for my hon. Friend to expand on that answer today, but I invite him to consider whether there is any prospect that NIREX's discussions with the Secretary of State will be fruitful. The examples that I have given show that people are suffering. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are looking, first and foremost, for a change of policy but, in the meantime, constituents who have all of their life savings tied up in property are unable to sell their homes.
NIREX says that there may be compensation arrangements when one site has been selected and there is planning blight. At the moment, there are no compensation arrangements and groups of constituents such as mine are being adversely affected. They have the right to some redress. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to be as helpful as he can.
We would like an assurance that the public inquiry will be able to consider all factors, including safety and other methods of disposal. What are those other methods? I have mentioned those used in Sweden and West Germany,

but there are companies in Britain which have done a tremendous amount of work on methods of disposal. Last year's Environment Select Committee report on nuclear waste disposal mentioned the ENSEC method. Mr. Alex Copson, the managing director of the ENSEC company, has devised an excellent method which disposes of low and intermediate-level waste under the sea, similar to a method used by the Swedish Government. We also have the power system of nuclear waste disposal which has been pioneered by Dr. Wheeler.
My hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment constantly say that NIREX is prepared to consider other methods of disposal, but I have the feeling that it has its head down and wants to go ahead only with shallow burial disposal. It may pay lip service to other methods, but that is the system for which it wants to go. The Department of the Environment should tell NIREX that it should consider methods, which have been identified by the County Councils Coalition, as seriously as the four sites which are already being investigated.
The County Councils Coalition is a model of lobbying and how a problem has been taken out of four communities and brought to the attention of the nation. Humberside county council is a hung council. I understand that the same is true of Bedfordshire and that there is a Conservative majority in Lincolnshire. The politicians in each have set aside the party political divide and worked together wonderfully.
I should like to pay tribute to Humberside county councillors Margaret Crampton, Hugh Lewis and John Bryant. They are from three different political parties and on a host of other issues engage in the rough and tumble of political debate. With their advisers, however, and the organisation that has produced the coalition report, added to similar experience in Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire, we have a recipe for good homework and first-rate research.
I should like to pay tribute to the leader of Glanford borough council, councillor Terry Atherton, and to its chief executive, David Cameron. Glanford borough council covers the South Killingholme area. They have worked night and day with the county council for many years, often with the encouragement of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department constantly tells the council that South Killingholme is one of the most important areas for industrial development in the United Kingdom, that the Humber estuary is the last undeveloped estuary, that it wants the council to bring in new jobs arid industry, and that the South Killingholme area should he in the vanguard of industrial development.
Nobody would believe it, but when the industrial development map was redrawn a couple of years ago an intermediate area boundary included Immingham but stopped short of South Killingholme. It might be thought that South Killingholme cannot be important because it does not have intermediate area status, but the Government made it a development area. It has full grant aid for industrial development. Here, however, through its agency, NIREX, the Department of the Environment is blighting the objectives of Glanford borough council, Humberside county council and the Department of Trade and Industry.
The area needs new jobs and serves the working population in the area represented by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It is extraordinary that South


Killingholme should be the boundary between intermediate and full development status. The site will be in an area covered by full development status.
The Department of Trade and Industry wants borough councils, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, me, my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to pitch in and ensure that industry goes to the area. We all want the same, but there are signs, according to what the borough council has told me, that its hard work and that being done by the county council to get industry to the area is being set at nought because the asset of land in the South Killingholme area is being frozen.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I know exactly what I would do, but if the hon. Gentleman were to draw the short straw, what should be done about low-level waste?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I was asked that question by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the leader of the Scottish National party. The debate arises from the County Councils Coalition report, which points to alternative methods of nuclear waste disposal. I have always accepted that low-level nuclear waste will occur and must be disposed of. The report alludes to the Swedish solution and a copy of it has been sent to every hon. Member. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will find one in his post.

Mr. Dalyell: I have the report with me.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman turns to the conclusions, he will read about the Swedish experience. The Swedish method is acceptable and allays the fears of the public. Therefore, my blunt answer to the hon. Gentleman's fair question is that I would adopt the Swedish method of disposal. That is what I want to see the Government do. If they cannot do it today, I shall continue lobbying and making representations until they do.
We have a full debate today. I know that other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that they will be successful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon. I wish to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle and for Glanford and Scunthorpe and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby for all the work that they have done. I am also most grateful to the County Councils Coalition.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my hon. Friend make perfectly clear to the House whether he is confining all his remarks to low-level nuclear waste and not including in them short-lived intermediate-level waste?

Mr. Brown: The problem of low-level nuclear waste has been occupying my mind for the most part this afternoon. Last year the Government made it clear— I hope that the Minister will reiterate this—that they intended to include intermediate-level nuclear waste for study. But, just before the special development order was laid before the House, in response to representations from me, the county councils and others, a decision was taken not to

include intermediate-level nuclear waste. Therefore, today we shall address our minds to the problem of low-level nuclear waste, although it will be relevant to raise aspects of intermediate-level nuclear waste within the terms of the motion.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning has not been well recently and I apologise to him. It was unfortunate for all of us that today's business was private Members' motions. I hope that he can respond reasonably well, but I know that a few days ago he was suffering from a temperature of over 100 deg F. I am most grateful to him for coming and I hope that he can stay the course of the debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): At least 12 hon. Members, apart from the two Front Bench spokesmen, are anxious to catch my eye before 7 o'clock, so I appeal for restraint from those who are called.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The disposal of nuclear waste is one of the key issues of our time. Future generations on these islands will pay a heavy price if we fail to dispose of radioactive waste as safely as possible. Not only will we be harshly judged by them, with great justification, but we shall put at risk both human and animal health, destroy our ecology and effectively sterilise our environment. Our forefathers did not leave us that sort of legacy, nor should we mortgage our children's future in such a way.
Many of us would prefer it if there were no nuclear waste to dispose of. Long before Chernobyl my party was opposed to nuclear generation because so many risks were involved. Today we are talking about low-level waste, but intermediate-level waste should also be considered. Our main objective, then and now, is to ask why we should produce a dangerous waste product which cannot as yet be effectively disposed of. That is highly irresponsible and cannot be defended when so many sources of energy are available.
Our resources provide us with alternative sources of energy and we could become a world leader in new technology for wind, water and solar power. Because of our wealth in coal and oil we have a breathing space which other countries have not. We cannot immediately prevent the creation of nuclear waste because at present we have a continuing programme, so nuclear waste is here and will be with us for a long time. We call for a pause so that we can dispose of the waste that we have and do some research to find out how the problem can be better tackled.
NIREX has chosen four sites in the United Kingdom for shallow grave disposal of low-level waste. The County Councils Coalition, of Humberside, Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire, has shown the way in its report, evaluating methods of disposal of radioactive waste in Sweden, West Germany and France. The report is far-sighted and I congratulate the coalition on being involved in such a constructive report, and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on drawing the attention of the House to it.
The Government and NIREX must learn from the conclusions of the report. If they do not heed them, I fear that the United Kingdom will become a nuclear dustbin.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman's speech is interesting, but could he


explain why the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is a Liberal party spokesman, concurred with paragraph 99 of the Environment Select Committee's report, which stated:
Near surface disposal facilities are … acceptable for short-lived low-level wastes"?

Mr. Livsey: I do not know the circumstances of that and, obviously, I shall question my hon. Friend about it after the debate.
The NIREX proposals for shallow grave disposal are fatally flawed. When the sites are examined, the limitations of the influence of the water table, in particular in clay soils, must not be ruled out. What point is there in putting nuclear waste in trenches if water can permeate through?
The two sites at Killingholme and Elstow are geologically unsound and can probably be ruled out immediately. The sites have been chosen only because they are already in public ownership, and to apply elsewhere would provoke such a public outcry that it could not be done.
The technical disadvantages of the NIREX proposals are compelling. There is evidence that they are suspect technically. The shallow trench proposals are known to be unsafe in the sites where they are proposed because of the high water table. The concrete cartons, in which it is proposed to put the waste, have already been proved unsuitable at the French Centre de la Manche, where the cartons are already cracking. The geology of the sites is suspect and at no site in the United Kingdom will the water permeation and radioactive contamination in the water be monitored, as it is at the French site. Indeed, I understand that the shallow trenches on the French site are above the water table, so are not comparable with NIREX's proposals for the United Kingdom.
The options considered by the coalition are much safer and more practical than the NIREX proposals. Even the French site at Centre de la Manche would monitor contamination of water and keep this water separate. They at least had the wit to put the site above the water table, even though the concrete cartons are cracking.
The West German option, using an old mine, is certainly one of interest, but the fears in the area around Teesside when proposals were put forward for the storage of nuclear waste in the mine at Billingham show that this does not seem to be a practicable option for the United Kingdom. As one would expect, by far the best proposal comes from the Swedes, and this has been evaluated by the County Councils Coalition. If the objective is to put the nuclear waste away safely, for at least 500 years, which is what the Swedes are talking about, then NIREX, in the interests of the public, must adopt the Swedish system.
This system consists of a tunnel under the sea, 500m deep and 1,000m long. It contains multiple barriers, which prevent the waste from escaping. There is double protection in steel and concrete drums and these are put into a bunker, which is back filled with concrete. The chamber itself is located in granite. These are more than double safe mechanisms, and the Swedes have taken a responsible attitude to the disposal of nuclear waste. The site is not yet in use, but it is ready for the future.
Undoubtedly, deep sites are the best, and we are talking about heavily populated countries where the rainfall is high and there is the problem of seepage. The cost of the Swedish construction is virtually the same as that for NIREX's proposal for shallow graves. This makes it attractive from an expenditure point of view.
There are massive technical objections to the NIREX shallow grave proposal, and there is no doubt that the United Kingdom has been found by the County Councils Coalition to be far behind in the technology of disposal of nuclear waste. The measures must have political acceptance— this is important. Clearly, planning procedures must apply, with democratically elected planning authorities involved in planning the sites for disposal, as they are answerable to the electors of the area.
Special development orders from the Government do not respond to the democratic wishes of the people living in the area. They are undemocratic and insensitive to local needs, when one considers the lack of responsiveness from the Government in comparison to that of locally elected members. A public inquiry, at which county councils can be called to give evidence, does not replace the need for proper planning procedures on a local basis.
The syndrome of "Not in my back yard" has been apparent from the reaction of hon. Members representing the proposed sites. No hon. Member could welcome the dumping of nuclear waste in his constituency. That is the acid test. No hon. Member is prepared to welcome nuclear waste in his constituency, and I would not welcome it in mine.

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): At least one hon Member has had the courage to go on record as saying that he would welcome it, and that is the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I hope that I would have the same courage in similar circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: It depends on the optimum geological conditions. The Patronage Secretary and the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) have to say whether they are in favour of their Government's policy, and support their Ministers.

Mr. Livsey: I am glad to hear that there are hon. Members who have the courage to welcome nuclear waste dumping in their constituencies. I shall watch the debate with interest to see how many hon. Members will say that today. There is growing public pressure on this matter. The great British public are wise in their judgment. They know that the proposals are not safe, and the maxim of "trust the people" is sound. One should not underestimate the knowledge and probing of the British public, who are well informed about the risks of shallow storage of low-level nuclear waste.
We must go for the safest option—disposal under the sea— and we must instruct NIREX to act on the County Councils Coalition report and put its proposals into action.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on selecting for debate a subject that is of fundamental concern not only to his constituents and the constituents of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but to the country as a whole.
My hon. Friend referred on a number of occasions to the first report of the Select Committee on the Environment for 1985–86, which was quoted extensively in the other report to which he referred, the report of the County Councils Coalition. The coalition followed the path beaten by my Committee in conducting its inquiry,


although the conclusions that it reached are in some respects different. That is understandable, because it represents the localities that will possibly be at the receiving end of something that would be unwelcome to anybody.
I wish to redress something of the balance of argument, because too much was attributed in the County Councils Coalition report to my Committee, which was not there or found to be there only by a series of selective quotations. I want also to take the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) to task. I remind him that the Select Committee on the Environment report was an all-party report, and that his Chief Whip was a member of the Committee and fully endorsed all the recommendations of that Committee, which the hon. Gentleman now seeks to criticise.
As to the official Opposition, two members of the Committee— one is now their Whip and one a spokesman on the environment— endorsed all the recommendations of the Committee.
I have now put the political aspect into perspective and can get down to the facts. Two years ago, at the start of my Committee's inquiry into radioactive waste, virtually all low-level waste went into Drigg in Cumbria. I shall refer to low-level waste because that is the only issue before us. We hope that there will be another debate on my Committee's report, when all the other matters can be dealt with. At the moment we are concerned only with low-level waste.
We found the arrangements there more than unsatisfactory. It would not be unfair to say that primitive is an accurate description of what we found. Wastes were unsorted. They were not packed, labelled or compacted and were simply tipped into clay trenches and covered with earth. Water drained unchecked through the clay and out into the local stream. That arrangement may have been fine in the light of scientific knowledge and technology as understood 40 years ago, when Drigg was first started.
However, it immediately became clear to us that the practice on low-level waste disposal in the United Kingdom fell far behind that of countries such as Sweden, Germany and France. We made very strong recommendations in our report that were aimed at improving the practice at Drigg. I am glad to say that in their reply to us the Government agreed that Drigg should not be the model for any future disposal site. I am also glad that measures are now in hand to cap the Drigg trenches and to compact and containerise the waste, wherever possible.
While these measures go a long way towards meeting the concerns and recommendations of my Committee, they do not go the whole way. We should like there to be more identification and monitoring of the type of waste that goes into Drigg to ensure that it is only short-lived, low-level waste.
That brings me to the second point that I wish to make— whether near-surface burial sites are suitable for the disposal of short-lived, low-level waste. After studying the evidence, both in this country and in Europe, the United States and Canada, my all-party Committee came to the conclusion that near-surface disposal facilities are acceptable for such waste, provided that they are fully engineered on a complete containment basis. If that were done, it would not be inappropriate to dispose of low-level waste in near-surface burial sites. In parenthesis, I am

gratified that the Government accepted our recommendation that such disposal sites should not be used for intermediate-level waste. That is a great advance on their previous policy, and I acknowledge the fact that again the Government accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Environment.
It has been suggested both elsewhere and during this debate that all radioactive waste, even low-level waste, would be best disposed of by deep burial and that no waste at all should be put into near-surface facilities. I have already mentioned that that is not the view to which my Committee came, although some low-level waste, as has been mentioned, is disposed of in Sweden and Germany by deep burial. The problem is volume. The volume of waste is an inevitable consideration here.
While low-level wastes are produced in the United Kingdom in their current great quantities, especially if we continue with Sellafield and reprocessing, it seems highly unlikely that deep burial, or the prolonged storage of low-level wastes, can be regarded as a practical solution. I say that notwithstanding the fact that the Committee gave urgent consideration to the point and made the strong recommendation that there should be more exploration and more research into the question of deep burial and beneath the seabed burial of wastes. However, we considered that those methods relate more sensibly to intermediate-level and high-level wastes.
That brings me to my third point, the highly sensitive issue of site selection for the disposal of low-level waste and the way in which it is beng handled by NIREX and the Government. At the start of our inquiry two years ago, the situation was very different. Originally, there was only one site under consideration as a successor to Drigg. That was at Elstow in Bedfordshire. It seemed to us that no criteria had been laid down as to why or how that site should be used. Also, we felt that insufficient research and insufficient geological exploration had been carried out in this country, by contrast with the work that we saw being done abroad in the countries that we visited. Therefore, the fact that the Government and NIREX are now looking at four alternative sites where the primary indication is that the geology might be suitable for near-surface burial follows the thinking of the Select Committee, that more exploration and more testing of sites should be carried out in this country.
Even if we closed down every nuclear power station in this country tomorrow, we cannot escape the fact that we should be left with the problem of the disposal of very large quantities of low-level waste that Drigg cannot conceivably handle. Therefore, somewhere else must be found and it would be sensible to carry out exploration up and down the country to find out where is the best and safest geology for this kind of disposal.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that not just nuclear power stations but hospitals and industry use nuclear particles for many experimental purposes? Those who consider that this is just a nuclear power station problem do not understand the nature of the problem and are emotively misled in their consideration of it.

Sir Hugh Rossi: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we are speaking of low-level waste we are speaking not only of nuclear power station products but of the products of hospitals, including X-ray equipment,


and industry and of the research that is done in our universities. They create low-level waste for which a home ultimately has to be found. The question is, where?

Mr. Austin Mitchell: But that is only a minor problem.

Sir Hugh Rossi: That brings me to the question of how to overcome what the Committee identified as the NIMBY—the "not in my backyard"—syndrome. No community can face with equanimity the prospect of its life being suddenly disturbed by the proposal to put a waste disposal dump in its locality. That is true not only of low-level radioactive waste that has certain emotive connotations, but also of toxic wastes which can be much more dangerous. For example, chemical toxic wastes can be much more dangerous than short-lived, low-level wastes. A community would look askance at such a proposal. I remember that some years ago, when I was an Opposition spokesman, I was asked to go down to Chipping Norton and support the local community against the proposal to use an old quarry for the disposal of GLC household refuse. The community was up in arms about it and asked, "Why should we have somebody else's rubbish in our backyard?" It was a natural reaction. The question is how to overcome it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to compensation. I am a great believer in compensation. The Committee came to the conclusion that the compensation must be generous, because we are talking about a community being requested to disadvantage itself for the benefit of the nation as a whole. If a community and individuals are asked to receive waste that nobody else wants and to make a sacrifice for the public good, I believe that the public as a whole should make sure that they are not badly off, or worse off, because of it—certainly insofar as the value of their property is concerned.
That is not a new concept. In the late 1960s when the Opposition were in government and introduced what they called a betterment levy, which meant that anybody who was developing land had to pay a levy because he was benefiting from planning permission, I remember that I and some of my hon. Friends tried to put forward the concept of "worsenment" compensation— the reverse side of the coin. However, that concept was not accepted and it was voted down. I doubt very much whether the railways of this country would ever have been built if the Victorians had not been prepared to pay 10 per cent. over and above the going market price for property that was affected by the building of the railways.
When it comes to nuclear power, the French are very practical and pragmatic. They meet with very little resistance and opposition. They make sure that local communities and individuals are compensated for any disadvantage that they may suffer because the country as a whole requires those communities or individuals to give up something in the national interest.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Was my hon. Friend's Committee satisfied with the NIREX proposals for disposal in areas where compensation might be required and where there are large numbers of people? Was his Committee satisfied that NIREX does not have alternative areas where there are not high populations and

where geologically correct land is available? Have we thoroughly explored those areas of Britain which do not have substantial problems about population?

Sir Hugh Rossi: As my hon. Friend rightly says. this is essentially a matter of geology. The sites in question have the geological advantage, but do not have advantages for the inhabitants who have the misfortune to live there. In geological terms they have impervious clay. Water is the greatest enemy in seeking to deal with the containment of radioactive materials. When we went to Canada we saw that they were looking for methods of deep disposal arid burrowing down into the heart of granite to see whether chambers could be created half a mile below the surface and away from communities. But the granite was fractured and water was able to percolate. The radioactive waste could not be put there because of the danger that over hundreds of years the radioactivity could find its way into the human environment.
This is a matter of finding sites that stand up to scientific tests. One of the criticisms of the Committee was that until recently nobody had tried to lay down the scientific criteria, the sine qua non, for the selection of a site. That is the most important thing to be done, and when that has been done exploration takes place. Sites are found where the geology is suitable and safe, and if there is a community there, the people are to be compensated for what they have to suffer in consequence of living on top of the geology that is right for this kind of activity.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. but I hope that my speech has restored a certain amount of balance to the debate, because there was a tendency to be slightly unfair and probably over-emotive when dealing with the disposal of low-level nuclear waste. That waste is containable and short-lived Nevertheless, it causes apprehension in the minds of the public who come across the concept for the first time.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on winning the ballot and on bringing this motion before us. He has fought a good fight on behalf of his constituents, but he has not exactly made life hell for the Department of the Environment in the way that he said he would. Life in the Department of the Environment is probably hell anyway, and the hon. Gentleman has certainly given the Department something of a hard time.
In bringing the motion before the House the hon. Gentleman has done a service for the nuclear industry generally because he has forced it to think about something that it would rather fob off. He has also done a service for the Department by pointing it towards fulfilling its responsibilities for the environment and the people, especially the people in our area. Up to now the Department has been the political arm of NIREX, acting in dumb acquiescence to what the nuclear industry and NIREX want. We would not have to say to the Minister, "Hang on and think about this, let us have a second look at it", if the Department had not rushed on in a wilful and headstrong way and largely ignored the recommendations of the Select Committee. That Committee urged wider consultation, fuller research and a Rolls-Royce solution, but the Minister fobbed off the Committee with specious arguments which, frankly, were unworthy of a congratulated first and were at about the level of a


commiserated Epsilon. That was the calibre of the arguments that were put forward against the Select Committee's recommendations.
I do not agree with some of the glosses that the Chairman put on his Committee's report. He spoke about the acceptability of shallow trench disposal of nuclear waste. I wonder whether he was accurately reflecting the views of his Committee. At paragraph 99 the report says:
Near surface disposal facilities are only acceptable for short-lived low-level wastes and must be fully engineered on a complete containment basis.
That is not what NIREX proposes. Water will go through, so it is not a complete containment. It will drain off into the water table and our areas have aquifers underneath the clay into which that water will drain. Therefore, that is not an acceptable definition of complete containment. The report went on to say:
Considerably greater emphasis must be given in research, development and policy to sea-bed options, especially to the use of tunnels under the sea-bed from land.
Therefore, the report urged another look at other methods at which the Department has not looked.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of putting a gloss on my Committee's report. However, the extracts that he has just read are almost word for word the words that I used to address the House. I do not follow the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. Of course I accept that if the sites selected by NIREX do not live up to the recommendations of the report, the Committee will not support NIREX. The whole idea of site testing and exploration is to find out whether or not the sites will comply with our recommendations.

Mr. Mitchell: That was part of the gloss, because I cannot see how drilling exploration holes at four sites lives up to the requirement of further research into methods of making Britain up to date in its study of methods of disposal. The Committee said that we were not up to date in such a study.

Mr. Frank Cook: Is not the point being emphasised in the quotations from the report contained in the phrase "complete containment"? The point that my hon. Friend is making is that the proposals so far advanced by NIREX for these purposes do not afford complete containment.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. The essence of my point is that drilling on four sites does not constitute research into methods of disposal. Complete containment is the matter in question and we are not getting it. NIREX has avowed that we are not getting it, yet the Committee says that it is essential. How can the Chairman accept the possibility of shallow trench disposal on any of those four sites by a method which his Committee did not accept?

Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman has quoted paragraph 99 of the report. Surely a public inquiry follows to find out whether containment is complete. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) says, it is not complete, disposal would not go ahead. Surely that is the whole purpose of a public inquiry, to evaluate the evidence. Sizewell was a general public inquiry and lasted two years.

Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Member has been fobbing off his own constituents with the claim that this

will be the subject of a full inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman contends that after going through this protracted farce of two years of exploratory drilling at huge cost and fixing on one site the whole thing is not prejudged by that and the work will start all over again if the inquiry rules against the site, he has given me a most unlikely proposition. His constituents will also regard it as unlikely.
My simple point is that this has been rushed through by the Department of the Environment. It certainly rushed the special development order through the House before consultations and representations from the people in the areas concerned were completed. Unmannerly would be one way to describe it, but dictatorial would be another. It was steamrollered over local opinion and NIREX and its thugs were then turned loose on the area. That is what it amounted to. I was there and I saw the methods that were used. The Minister of Environment, Countryside and Planning frowns at that. I had great hopes for him. He is a highly intelligent, sensitive, likeable Minister—I hope that I am not harming his career in the Government by saying that—but on this issue he has behaved with an insensitivity and displayed a dictatorial instinct that bode ill for concern about the environment. Having created this situation, the hon. Gentleman effectively washed his hands of the whole business, like a gutless wonder hiding behind NIREX and its bullying tactics. He encouraged NIREX to get on with what he called its "duty" while poncing up and down the country proclaiming his concern for an environment that has been despoiled 10 miles from Grimsby and well within reach of other areas.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman always gets carried away in his attacks. I have never seen him at any meeting ever trying to put forward views rationally against the wishes of many impassioned people, as I did in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I hope that the hon. Gentleman would have the guts to do that, but I doubt it.

Mr. Mitchell: In that instance, the Minister played a doubtful role. He pretended to listen to those people, but his mind was made up. A deputation from Grimsby went to one of the junior Ministers in the Department of the Environment, but the very next night the special development order was moved, after promises that the views of those people would be taken into account. The Minister rushed the measure through in a wholly unacceptable way. That is why I am being so harsh towards him. There was no need for that urgency or for that premature decision in favour of shallow trench disposal. The facilities at Drigg, with compacting, will be able to take all the future low-level waste until 2010. Why, therefore, rush into that decision? Why throw the whole weight of NIREX loose on our areas? Why employ the bullying tactics of injunctions against many people? One of the people involved in the area did not even exist. An injunction was taken out against another for singing "All Things Bright and Beautiful" on the site. Another was asked to deliver the injunction to his friends because the people serving the injunction could not find them. All that legal bullying was employed in a dubious cause which was decided prematurely without proper consideration and without proper thought.

Dr. Michael Clark: I am somewhat confused. Does the hon. Gentleman think that public inquiries should take


place before test drilling? If so, does he not realise that test drilling is an opportunity to eliminate a site before a public inquiry has to take place?

Mr. Mitchell: My contention is simply that the Government have a responsibility to inquire fully into the best, safest and most acceptable method. If they had done that, local opinion might well be more amenable to influence, although there would still he resistance. People would be satisfied that the Government had done their best and had inquired.

Mr. Michael Brown: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), then Secretary of State for the Environment, at 4.13 pm on 25 October 1983, when he said that there would be public inquiries into the two facilities at Elstow and Billingham before a test drilling took place. That was the original intention. I have the statement here.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. But my concern is about the speed of action. The Government did not review the position and consider it as fully as was needed if people were to be convinced that they were going for the best practicable option—the Rolls-Royce option—that was safe. If the Government had weighed everything up and had consulted fully, there would have been a different argument, but they did not do so. Instead, they steamrollered the decision through and imposed it on areas that did not want it.
The shallow trench disposal method means that waste has to be carted across the country and dumped on areas that have nothing to do with it. That decision was made prematurely, without research and in defiance of overseas practice. It should not be up to county councils to prepare a report. The Department of the Environment should have investigated. The decision was made in defiance of French practice, which is better than the practice that NIREX intends to impose on the site chosen. In the United States, where shallow trench disposal has been used, the sites are being abandoned because they are not contained and are decaying and disintegrating.
In my constituency at South Killingholme and at other sites, people are asked to accept the effect of such a disposal site on house prices and development. Department of Trade and Industry officials in Leeds said as much, until they were shut up. Manifestly. the possibility that a nuclear dump will be constructed in an area cannot be to that area's benefit. No amount of NIREX talk, soft soap by the Minister or dressing the project up with Angela Rippon and Ray Buckton will help. Two tonnes of Angela Rippon would not make this acceptable to the area. I wrote to Angela Rippon to say that I did not like her practice of hiring herself out for £4,000 a year—which is more than a governor of the BBC gets—to become the acceptable face of NIREX. She wrote back and accused me of being sulky because I had lost on "Masterteam". If that is the level of persuasive argument to be used, it bodes ill for the future.
I conclude with four points. First, the waste problem should have been fully considered by Layfield before any decision was taken on new nuclear power stations. Layfield said that he could not get satisfactory estimates of the cost of waste disposal. Those costs should be high if there is to be an effective and trusted method of waste

disposal. They should be taken into account in deciding the costings of the whole nuclear programme and new stations as they are proposed.
Secondly, since Layfield and since this decision was taken, there has been a steady development of new methods of disposal, including methods used by the oil industry, such as the POWER method of undersea disposal. That method has been actively propagated by Dr. Wheeler and his organisation Warrior Resources. It is curious that experts from Japan, the Soviet Union and other countries are coming to Britain to look at that method of disposal of nuclear waste, yet NIREX is not rushing to look at it and the Government are cool on the whole business.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend accept that some of us are very concerned about undersea disposal because it cannot be monitored?

Mr. Mitchell: My point is that it is essential to look at other methods. There will be controversy about any method, but it is important that full research is undertaken to ensure that the best method is chosen.
Thirdly, I commend the County Councils Coalition. I shall not read out its conclusions as the report has been available to hon. Members but it casts enormous doubt on the case put forward by the Government and by NIREX and shows that this method is not in accord with the best overseas practice.
Fourthly, I express my pleasure about the last Labour party conference which resolved by an overwhelming majority against shallow trench disposal, commended the resisters and committed the party as a matter of party policy to the proposition that there will be no commissioning of new sites, including any site arising from this study, without a full geological study and full study of alternative methods of disposal. That is all I ask.
The decision has been made prematurely. The county council, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and I argue that the project should be stopped because the Government arc wrong. The Government should admit that they are wrong, stop the development and not persevere in their sullen obstinacy with a decision that was wrong and a method that is outdated.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I am well aware that many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. If my intervention is the shortest in the debate, I shall be well pleased at the end of the evening.
During the nine months since our last debate and the nomination of the four sites I have had a chance to see each one. I shall not comment on them save to say that on a superficial look the Elstow site, which was the site chosen by the Government to start with before the others were announced, was one of the most unattractive, in view of the population size, with Bedford nearby.
Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—the Chairman of the Select Committee—made clear, there is no difficulty. As I said in the House nine months ago, I have no doubt that technically any one of these sites—properly engineered, with proper compaction, proper concrete or metal containers and with all the facilities that we saw being used abroad in the modern context—would do. However, that does not seem to be the question. It is not the technicalities but the public perception that matters.
Equally important is the fact that the Government took a very wise, sensible and acceptable step when they said that they will not include intermediate waste in low-level disposal. However, that leaves the question of what they will do with the intermediate waste. The Government cannot say that some form of shallow disposition is adequate. If that is the position, we must see whether we can begin to do the same as the Swedes, who are burying their low-level and intermediate waste in the same facility, but making it safe for the level of intermediate waste.
I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is not very happy about putting waste under the sea. One of the most important factors about the French experience is their capacity to monitor every container for decades and centuries to come, which is important. We have salt beds which would be eminently suitable for moderately deep entrenchment. They would not be hideously expensive to develop. The salt there indicates that there has not been water there for millions of years.
Instead of saying that we shall go down the road of shallow burial, which no doubt is technically acceptable, but having regard to Chernobyl, and in view of the attack that the industry is under—an industry which I want to defend— it would be better to spend a few tens of millions of pounds more to obtain a facility which is more acceptable. If that were being investigated as well as the present sites, I should be more content than I am today.

Mr. David Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who has done the House and the nation a service by enabling us to debate the motion.
When I looked at the record I was surprised to see the number of debates that we have had on the subject, which is only right, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said, the key to the issue is public perception. The more that we discuss the issue, the more likely we are to increase public understanding of it.
I have participated in a number of these debates and it is a matter of regret that most have been initiated by various means by, and at the instigation of Back Benchers. I pay credit to those Back Benchers, but I regret that the Government have not seen fit to bring forward a motion which we could debate.
We have had one debate instigated by the Government, but it did not seek to extend public perceptions or the public debate but sought to inhibit them. That was when the Government were successful in persuading the House to pass a special development order, which stopped the local people and the local democratically elected councils participating and taking a decision under the normal planning lines for the exploratory work at the four sites. We made it plain then, and I make it plain again, that the Government have done a disservice to the whole issue by trying to hush it up.
That raises a serious point. Many people are worried about the Government's obsession with secrecy. I warn the Minister—I think that he shares this viewpoint—that it is of no service to the industry to discuss everything behind closed doors. There must be a full and frank debate if we are to get across the problems involved. There are

problems, as has been pointed out to the House, and as I have said on many occasions. We are not only talking about nuclear waste; we are talking about radioactive waste. As the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has reminded us already, that waste is produced at more than 5,000 establishments and in every hospital in Britain. The problem is there and has to be faced. Let us face up to that debate in public.

Dr. Michael Clark: When the hon. Gentleman says that we have to face up to the fact that it is radioactive, nuclear waste, will he agree that when a decision was made nearly two years ago to remove from consideration intermediate-level waste from the sites now being discussed, 99 per cent. of the potential radioactivity on those sites went with that decision?

Dr. David Clark: Statistically, the hon. Gentleman is right, but those shallow sites, at which the Government are proposing to deposit low-level waste, are still highly radioactive. They will be radioactive for up to 30 years at full-life and a further 300 years of half-life. Admittedly, in the last 270 years there will be a tailing-off of radioactivity. However, they are still radioactive and while one welcomes the Government's conversion to the view that short-lived intermediate waste should not be dealt with in that way, it is wrong to confuse the issue and imply that that low-level waste is not dangerous and not highly radioactive.

Sir Trevor Skeet: We were told in the House the other day about radon gas and natural radiation, which comes from the environment. Will the hon. Gentleman agree that what is likely to come from low-level waste is a minute fraction of what comes from the environment and radon gas?

Dr. David Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that there is a lot of background radiation. The measurements along the stones and pebbles on a Cornish beach are high. But the point is that this is cumulative, and if one accumulates and disposes of a concentration of radioactive material one is increasing the danger. If we follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, there would be no problem—we would just leave waste in open dustbins. However, we are not proposing to do that, because everyone accepts that it is an additional level of high radiation.
I return to the Government's obsession with secrecy, because it is the kernel of the argument against them. That view is shared—perhaps not as openly in some quarters as others— widely in the House. We have seen an example of it today, where a proposal to change the whole countryside planning of Britain was announced in a written answer to a question which was not even on today's Order Paper. That is reprehensible, and the message ought to go out from the House to the Government that in all these things there should be much more openness. I say to the Minister that if there is more openness we will get more consensus. The Minister shakes his head.

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the point that the hon. Member is making, I shook my head only because 1 am not so optimistic as he is. I am not sure that, however open I had been about, for example. the Billingham anhydrite mine, I could have persuaded his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) that that was a good idea.

Dr. Clark: There was a consensus in that case. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) persuaded the Minister that it was not a good idea, so we reached a solution.
When we are dealing with long-term problems it will benefit all sides if we can reach a consensus. The Government's obsession with secrecy does no good. There are other examples of that obsession. I understand that a report dealing with research findings about the incidence of leukaemia among people living near nuclear power stations is to be withheld by the Government until after the House takes a decision on the Sizewell B power station. That is pertinent to our debate and it should be considered by the House when we make up our minds whether to approve the Sizewell B project.
If we go ahead with nuclear technology without solving the problems of nuclear waste we shall get into further difficulties. That point has been faced squarely by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and all hon. Members must face up to it. We must examine the consequences of going ahead with nuclear generation before we have found ways of solving the waste problem.
As usual, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) made a worthwhile contribution. Under his chairmanship, the Select Committee on the Environment produced an excellent report on radioactive waste, which has been widely welcomed throughout the country. In May last year the then Secretary of State told the House that there would be a full-day debate on that report. I ask the Minister to look into that matter and to come back and tell us that we shall have a full-day debate on that important report very soon.

Sir Hugh Rossi: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has promised me that we shall have a debate in the near future.

Dr. Clark: I am pleased to hear that and I hope that the "near future" will be sooner rather than later.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry to have hesitated before intervening, but I wanted to be quite sure that I was able to make the statement that I now wish to make. The hon. Gentleman referred to a press report that one of the studies coming out of the post-Black report work was being deliberately delayed. I assure him that there is no truth in that report. Publication is expected in late March.

Dr. Clark: I am pleased to hear that, but late March will be after the Sizewell debate, which I undestand is to take place before the end of February. If even a summary of the report could be made available before the Sizewell debate it would help hon. Members to come to a decision about Sizewell. It is not good enough to say that the report will be published in March.
I add my tributes to the excellent report from Environmental Resources Ltd on behalf of the County Councils Coalition. One of its key conclusions is that we should examine the possibility of deep disposal of all radioactive waste. The organisation visited Sweden, Germany and—most important—France before coming that conclusion.
Having studied the arguments advanced by Ministers in our previous debates, I begin to perceive a confusion in their philosophical approach. I am not sure that, when they talk about near-surface disposal, they are certain what they mean. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made that point.
There are two approaches to the problem of waste disposal— containment, or dilute and disperse. They involve two conflicting engineering concepts and it is not clear which one the Government favour. The Select Committee examines the matter from paragraph 47 onwards and rejects the concept of dilute and disperse because of the problem of hot spots. That important problem must lead us to reject dilute and disperse, whether into the atmosphere, the marine environment or into the sub-strata of the earth.
Therefore, we must go for containment. The Government argue against that policy and cite the French example with their facility at the Centre de la Manche as an example of dilute and disperse. However, as the report of the County Councils Coalition points out, that is a false analogy, because the French facility is aimed at a containment philosophy. Es structure is based above the watershed and any water coming through is collected and monitored. The French are trying to get a double insurance policy on the cheap. That is made plain on page 31 of the coalition's report which argues that the French example is "fundamentally different" from the NIPEX design.
The fundamental contradiction between the alternative philosophies causes us some difficulties when we try to solve the problem. That became clear to me when the Daily Mirror ran a report last September saying that drums containing radioactive waste had leaked at Bradwell I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is not present. He is an assiduous attender at these debates. Indeed, I believe that he has been present at all the debates that I have attended and I know that there is a good reason for his absence. When I read the report in the Daily Mirror I wrote to the Minister and the Department of the Environment replied. It confirmed the story and said that the low-level waste storage facility at Bradwell had been approved by the Department since the early 1970s.
The low-level waste is stored in steel drums in the void cells below the circulation halls at Bradwell nuclear power station. Following an inspection towards the end of 1984, some water penetration into the storage cells was discovered and a small percentage of the drums were found to be corroded. I do not suggest that there was any danger in that instance. The nuclear industry inspectorate looked into the matter and required the CEGB to put things right by encasing the drums in polythene, removing the water and building small walls round the contaminated area.
However, an obvious point arises. We were assured by experts in the 1970s that the storage of low-level nuclear waste in steel drums beneath a power station was a safe and adequate way to store radioactive material. Years later, we see that it was not safe; drums have corroded. Fortunately, we were able to put matters right at Bradwell because the material was retrievable. If it had not been, the situation would have been difficult and dangerous. I am worried because the engineering facilities proposed by NIREX at its four exploration sites do not allow that retrievability and therefore must be rejected.

Dr. Michael Clark: As the only Essex Member in the the House with a constituency immediately adjacent to the Bradwell site, perhaps I might comment. I am disturbed by what the hon. Member For South Shields (Dr. Clark) has told us. Is he aware that the engineered disposal


repositories proposed can be created only in suitable ground conditions with heavy clay and where the ground movement is less than lm per 100 years? So, even in the event of the corrosion of metal containers—which I hope will not happen—the water movement will be only 1m per 100 years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal again for brevity. I remind the House that interventions prevent hon. Members with a strong constituency interest from taking part in the debate. I appeal for restraint but I understand how strongly hon. Members feel about the issue.

Dr. David Clark: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I emphasise that the experts told us in the 1970s that this was a safe method and they now tell us that clay subsoil is safe. We can accept a disposal system only if it is monitorable and retrievable. That is fundamental to any solution.
There has not been sufficient public discussion or research. Massive cuts have been made in research personnel. We need exactly the opposite. We need open debate and more research, both in connection with short-lived radioactive material and with high-level radioactive material.
In addition to the complex current problems of nuclear waste disposal, the decommissioning of power stations will present considerable further long-term problems. We need a carefully researched programme to deal with nuclear waste well into the future. It is essential that such a programme be compiled without secrecy. It is impossible to operate an effective strategy for dealing with the physical, locational and scientific issues without the understanding and involvement of the general public. I wish that the Government would learn that lesson.

Sir Peter Emery: I follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in an unusual way, but with a certain confidence. I am chairman of the science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly. As recently as last autumn, we passed resolutions about nuclear problems—including nuclear waste disposal—and I am delighted to say that the hon. Gentleman and his party were unanimous supporters of the resolutions that I put to the assembly.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who made an admirable constituency speech which I hope will do him well in his constituency. Nevertheless, it was a constituency speech and did not take into account all the scientific aspects of the disposal of nuclear waste. One of the problems is that so few people understand the difficulties. All too frequently, people are influenced by emotional factors so that the issue becomes emotive and goes way beyond proper consideration.
The problem is international. Nuclear waste is of concern to 27 nations which are all considering the same problem. They include Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Central African Republic, China, Finland, France, Gabon, the German Federal Republic, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa,

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and USSR. I list those countries to emphasise that this is not a constituency issue but one of international importance.
All nations within NATO meet a proportion of their energy needs by nuclear reactors and, as a result, they have a variety of procedures for dealing with nuclear waste. The disposal of nuclear waste is more than a technical issue. It becomes emotive when people argue against nuclear power because of the problems caused by the disposal of nuclear waste. Many industries produce potentially dangerous waste which can be a hazard to human health and cause environmental damage. Many industries and processes can be extremely hazardous when they go wrong without having anything to do with nuclear industry. There is no better example than that of Bhopal, where 2,000 people died. That incident had greater consequences than anything that anyone envisaged.
Industries which are prone to such risks are subject to regulations and safeguards to protect human life and the environment. I can say without fear of contradiction that the nuclear industry is no exception. It is subject to exceptionally strict controls. As a Minister I was once responsible for that aspect of industry. I come to the House today wearing the tie given to me at Dounreay where the fast breeder overcomes many of the problems by disposing of much of the nuclear waste. I have often wanted to form a society for developing fast breeder reactors. The issues are complicated and the debate is confused. It is confused because not enough knowledge has been conveyed, and the Government may be open to some criticism in that respect. There must be a greater understanding of the subject.
Most of today's debate has been about the disposal of low level nuclear waste, but there are three categories of nuclear waste, each of which has relatively distinctive characteristics. The first, which has hardly been mentioned today, is high level waste consisting of spent reactor fuel, which is a solid waste, and some of the products, which are liquid, arising from reprocessing spent reactor fuel. High level waste is stored to allow thermal and radioactive decay of some of the most active constituents, which in some cases takes up to 50 years, by which time activity will have declined sufficiently for the waste to be prepared for permanent disposal rather than for assessed storage.
Some nations do not process spent nuclear fuel to reclaim nuclear material; others, including ourselves, prefer to do so. Whether or not it is processed, high level nuclear waste remains radioactive for millions of years. It continues to be dangerous for at least several thousand years, even though the radioactivity declines sharply over the decades, as the hon. Member for South Shields said. Such waste constitutes less than 1 per cent. of all the nuclear waste in the world. At present, 17 nations are investigating potential sites for underground repositories and 10 nations are operating, constructing or designing verification plants to deal with this problem. Although high level waste poses the most difficult problem, nations throughout the world are coping with it.
The second category of nuclear waste is intermediate level waste, which normally consists of the cladding from nuclear reactor fuel rods, contaminated equipment and some parts of decommissioned reactors. The third category is low level waste. This consists of contaminated paper, plastic, clothing and building debris and is produced by research facilities.
The disposal of low level waste is relatively straightforward. It is important to distinguish low level waste from the other two types, because, as its name suggests, its radioactivity level is low. Disposal practices among the 27 nations that I have mentioned differ. Some nations bury their waste in shallow trenches or in natural or man-made rock cavities. More contaminated waste is placed in trenches or buried deep underground and then usually covered in concrete. Some sea dumping takes place. The waste is placed in containers and the radioactivity generally declines before the container erodes due to the action of the ocean. I accept that that is a much more difficult method to monitor than any of the others, but it is widely regarded as acceptable.
As I have tried to emphasise, this is not just a national but an international problem. My committee of the North Atlantic Assembly is trying to bring in standards that we would like to see accepted everywhere, not just by the Vienna committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was set up by the United Nations. That body seems to proceed at the speed of the lowest common denominator, and Russia and other countries are members of it. If the North Atlantic Assembly could come up with recommendations that were accepted by all 16 member Governments, that would be a major step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes could then propose to his constituents a solution that was acceptable not only in this country but internationally.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister do everything in his power to co-operate with the science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly in its work? Will he ensure that the substantial body of scientific and technical evidence from past and ongoing studies and from research and development activities is made available internationally? Will he ensure that research and development continue to be sponsored and backed by the Government so that remaining gaps for particle options can be filled, specific data on sites collected and safety studies refined? Will he ensure that there is periodic reassessment of waste disposal practices and that new policies taking account of our evolving knowledge are formulated? Lastly, will he ensure that there is quality control at all stages— an essential nuclear safety requirement—and that such control is applied through the whole chain of nuclear waste management in this country? If the Minister can give the House those reassurances, it will be much easier for my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to reassure his constituents that the Government's proposals are, as I believe, reasonable. So long as those proposals are properly monitored, I should be quite happy for them to be carried out in my constituency, and it will be easier for the British public to understand and back the stance that the Government are adopting.

Mr. Frank Cook: I commend the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss this subject again. I also commend the County Councils Coalition for taking the initiative on the work that has gone into the report, with many of whose conclusions I agree.
I must register my disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who castigated the Minister for the manner in which he dealt with these issues. My experience of the Minister's attention

to the subject, when I led the Billingham against nuclear dumping campaign, leads me to record my utmost respect for the way in which he listened to our representations and handled the affair. He listened so well that the proposals in question were withdrawn; and if he ever tries to reintroduce them he will have an even more bitter battle on his hands. I advise him not to try it.

Mr. Michael Brown: I share the hon. Gentleman's experience. My hon. Friend the Minister and I disagree on the policy but he has always received me courteously and listened to our deputations. Therefore, I wish to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but we must not do this too often.
What is the value of nuclear waste? Lord Marshall told me two and a half years ago that most of the waste that was destined for disposal at Billingham— the motion refers to intermediate-level waste— contained rare elements which, by the turn of the century, would prove valuable to industry. We would therefore regret disposing of it in such a non-retrievable way.
What is the value of nuclear waste? Some suggest that its value lies in jobs. The estimates given at the time of the Billingham proposals suggested that 18 jobs would have been created— 18 jobs in an area where more than 14,500 people are unemployed.
At the last nuclear forum I was approached by a senior member of staff who told me that there would come a time when I would crawl back to NIREX imploring it to return to Billingham to dispose of its nuclear waste in the disused anhydrite mines because that would bring employment to the area. He also said that if we had been prepared to accept the proposals we could have claimed much of the engineering work that the nuclear industry pushes out to fabricators and designers. That was a despicable attempt either at being humorous—if so, it was singularly unfunny—or at being serious. If the latter, the remark was so sinister that I suggest the Minister looks into it.
The nuclear industry is unique in two respects. One is the nature of the risk with which it faces society. Here I must dispute to some extent what was said by the hon. Member for Honiton, (Sir P. Emery). That risk not only faces the present generation but is a threat to generations to come, unless we handle it correctly now. We have heard about poisons and the toxicity of radioactive waste but that is a threat similar to that posed by cigarette smoking. It is a threat to the generation that lives with and absorbs the poison, and there is a degree of volition in it. Radiation, however, is much more insidious and much harder to detect. As such, it threatens child-bearing age groups and, therefore, generations yet to come.
The other unique aspect of the nuclear industry is that it handles its waste unlike any other industry. It makes a bigger problem of its waste than it had in the first place. The initial difficulty lies in the containment of it, not in its handling. The industry compounds its problem by its so-called processing, which increases the volume by many times. We have already heard the comments of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, who freely concedes that a major aspect of the matter is that very problem—the volume.
The problem of containment is magnified. The industry makes more of its garbage to be contained than it did


originally. The processing of spent magnox rods is particularly expensive, time-consuming and hazardous. Most of all, it is unnecessary. Such rods may be stored in engineered dry storage, where they can be monitored constantly and retrieved for further attention if necessary. Such treatment would ensure that the minimum space is occupied and that the maximum security is assured.
If that is so, why should we go on making more of the stuff? The justification trotted out is that we now have contractual commitments with other nations to treat their waste in the same nonsensical way in which we treat our own. The industry seeks to absolve itself from stupidity—or should I say culpability?—by pointing frantically to clauses in its contracts which permit it to return recycled waste to the point of origin. I have yet to see any evidence, or even hear any claim, that that has yet been done. In fact, I suspect that if British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. was even to suggest implementing that option our overseas clients would withdraw from any arrangements that they have made.
The situation borders on the farcical. It would be laughable were it not so serious. As it is so serious, what should we do, bearing in mind that we already have the stuff and, having it, must do something with it? First, I suggest that we stop processing other people's. Our communities deserve better than to be condemned to the job of turnkey for the world's worst waste. Secondly, we should stop recycling our own waste. I say "recycling" specifically. There is no justification for it, either as a means of making more fuel or as a means of managing its disposal.
Thirdly, we should reduce the output of such rubbish to a level that is absolutely necessary. First, we should introduce controls on the overuse in the medical profession of radiography. Should anyone wish to question that, I can tell the House that serious assessments have been made which indicate that 1,400 cancers per year in this country are generated by the overuse of X-rays. Secondly, we must maintain our absolute ban on the use of irradiation as a means of treating food. It has been proposed that we should broaden that kind of approach. I say that we should maintain the ban.
Hon. Members will notice that I do not say that we should stop nuclear production altogether. I merely suggest that we should reduce it. I realise that to eliminate such production is impossible. It may be appropriate at this point for me to place on record that I am not antinuclear, as the nuclear industry would assert, any more than I am what I am accused of being by the anti-anything and anti-everything brigade— a paid agent of the nuclear industry. I am not anti-nuclear at all; in fact, I am distinctly pro-nuclear, in the safe sense. In other words, I am pro-safe nuclear and very anti-unsafe nuclear. To continue accusing me of being anti-nuclear is like accusing me of being anti-food when I say that I am anti-food poisoning.
I have already commended the motion on the Order Paper for its sensible approach. It seeks to ensure that there are better technical alternatives to the proposals that have been advanced so far, and to put forward overall cost alternatives. It also seeks to further public acceptance if a truly convincing solution can be found. That job has already been entrusted to NIREX.
Let me quote from NIREX's articles of association. I shall not quote them at length, because they are numerous and legalistic, but I ask the House to pay close attention to them. They enable NIREX to do almost anything and everything with anyone and everyone. In obtaining equipment, it can collude with whoever it chooses, in whatever way it chooses. I suggest that hon. Members seek a copy of the articles and read them at their leisure, as they give sufficient ground for concern. But let me now read to the House, word for word, page 3 clause (L) of the objectives. It states that NIREX is empowered
To make loans or donations to such persons and in such cases (and in the case of loans either of cash or of other assets) as the Company may think directly or indirectly conducive to any of its objects or otherwise expedient.
That is only one of the many clauses that give NIREX carte blanche to conduct its affairs in almost any way that it sees fit. Let us compare that with the manner in which our communities have had to beg and borrow resources with which to prevent an alternative view. NIREX has unrestrained permission to bribe, bludgeon and blackmail, and unlimited finances with which to fund such nefarious activities.
I commend the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes for his clear denial of the NIMBY syndrome, to which other hon. Members have referred, the "not in my backyard syndrome". He has learnt that and good for him. I remind the House of the time when I was the lone voice opposing such proposals in this Chamber. On those occasions many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, appeared mildly amused by my protestations. Some sniggers were also heard from Labour Members. At that time I said that smiles would not be so wide once other communities came under similar threat. It gives me no satisfaction today to say "I told you so."
The Government will be compelled by public pressure to re-examine their stance on these issues. They will be forced to rethink their whole approach, and rightly so. While they are doing that I ask them to think about what I have said. First, do not recycle foreign waste. Secondly, do not recycle our own. Thirdly, do not make so much of it in the first place. Those are all negative points. Let me put on record what should be the positive side. While I am doing that, I ask the House to remember that I have thought long and often on those issues. The positive side is, put it where it is well isolated from inhabited communities. It is lunatic to do otherwise. Put it in engineered storage where it is well maintained, well managed and well monitored. It is lunatic to do otherwise. Put it into stores from which it can readily be retrieved and redeemed if things go wrong.
I must admit that to implement all those three suggestions of course makes the process more expensive. However, we cannot afford to sell the safety of tomorrow for the sake of saving a few bob today.

Sir Trevor Skeet: You enjoined, Mr. Speaker, that we should make brief speeches. I will comply with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mrs. Madel) is present, and he may have a chance to catch your eye.
I shall take up the last remark of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). Of course we must be clear about the disposal of nuclear waste where a large population is involved. A large population must be remote


from such a site. Of the four sites, that consideration would rule out as unsuitable Elstow and Killingholme. However, the two sites which should be carefully scrutinised as possible locations are Bradwell and Fulbeck. Ultimately the site should be decided on the basis of geological surveys, hydrology and a full public inquiry.
One matter has not been raised today which Sir Frank Layfield dealt with in the Sizewell report. In chapter 2, paragraph 112, volume 3, he stated:
The CEGB's conclusion that the safe disposal of all types of radioactive waste was technically feasible was not disputed…Storage space on the site would be provided for up to one year's waste.
That is at Sizewell. The report continued:
If necessary the storage capacity could be increased to hold waste for the whole life of Sizewell.
The cost of storing 40 years of low-level waste and intermediate-level waste, which does not arise in this particular case, was estimated to be about £10 million.
It is interesting that a man who has examined the matter of nuclear waste carefully for a number of years has come to the conclusion that it can safely be stored at power stations for some time. Another proposition that he made was that the radiological effect of solid wastes on the public near the site was assessed by the CEGB in chapter 32, paragraph 29 of the report to be "effectively zero".
His final conclusion after he had posed nine questions and then set out his answer to them in chapter 47, paragraph 66, was:
There are no safety problems caused indirectly by the operation of Sizewell B, such as radioactive waste management, that could give rise to intolerable risks.
I make that point because one of the sites involved is Bradwell, which has a power station. Today we learnt that it has been storing nuclear waste for some time. There is no reason why it should not be considered as a storage facility for some years hence.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy on 15 December 1986 about the CEGB and the SSEB and was given the answer:
The CEGB and SSEB have agreed to analyse the technical and economic aspects of backfitting dry stores to Magnox stations."—[Official Report, 15 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 383.]
They are also considering the position of AGRs in this country. Therefore, if the Opposition believe that nuclear waste could be stored at power stations above ground within the United Kingdom, and if backfitting is proceeding, this should be explored much more realistically.
I shall discuss rapidly another point that I have in mind. I am in favour of the shallow burial repository, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) who chaired the Select Committee on the Environment. Shallow burial, properly engineered, has the backing of the experts who produced the "Assessment of the Best Practical Environmental Options" report, those who produced the Sizewell B report, and those on the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, who advise the Minister. Others, including the Government, are in favour of a shallow burial repository and have implemented it, through a policy which has operated over several years from 1982 in the publication of the White Paper Cmnd. 8607. The Government's response to the Environment Select Committee report has shown perfectly clearly that their policy is consistent.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman ponder the fact that many of the references that he has just made are simply a number of aliases for the same incestuous crowd?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I shall make it perfectly clear that I must not be led away by certain arguments which I should like to enter into on another occasion. I have been asked to speak briefly, and I shall. The built-in error of the argument that we have heard today is that the ERL report forgets that low-level waste only is being considered and that intermediate-level waste has now been excluded. Disposal of low-level waste does not involve such expensive treatment as has been laid down in Sweden, which incidentally uses shallow land cavities for low-level waste. The waste consists of clothing, paper towels, air filters and resins and things of that description. Even in Sweden there are at least three sites that I know of where low-level waste is disposed of in cavities and not at deep level. Surface disposal of waste is also used in Canada, the United States of America, arid France and plans are being considered in Belgium and Japan.
I appreciate that I must bring all my points together rapidly to allow other hon Members to speak, but in conclusion I would say that Elstow is unsuitable for a number of reasons, especially on the ground of the nearness of the population to it. Bedford is only 3 miles away. The two other major sites which I have recommended are between 7½ and 10 miles away from any significant population centres. That is one of the prime reasons for the exclusion of Elstow. I hope that at the public inquiry all the arguments which are being used in this Chamber today will be fully and firmly ventilated before experts and critically examined.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall speak for about three minutes, and my speech will consist of a number of questions. First, I shall address myself to Sweden. The three counties' report states:
In radiological terms there is merit in the claimed desire to limit exposures from a NIREX repository to 0o1 milliSievert per year. Sweden has a design limit 100 times lower of 0·001 milliSievert a year.
The NIREX response welcomed the coalition's recognition of the stringent safety standards but commented:
However, it is incorrect to imply that the Swedish safety limit is 100 times more restrictive than the UK target.
It added:
It is also likely that the NIREX safety case will be better than 0·1 milliSievert a year, but it shall not exceed this figure. This is substantially less than the variations in natural background radiation in the UK.
It is of great importance that we should hear the Government's view on which body is right, the coalition or NIREX.
Secondly, I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in asking about international matters. I am of the belief that it is of overwhelming importance that in reprocessing we do the very best job as human beings rather than as a nationality. If we British, as I believe, are better at reprocessing than anyone else on the face of the planet, it is better for humanity that we should do it. I believe also that our engineering expertise merits that, quite apart from employment considerations.
Thirdly, as the Minister intervened at an early stage of the debate to say, I have indeed said that if the geological conditions were right I would hope to have the guts to


argue that the Linlithgow constituency should be used as a site. Since I said that, however, there has been a great deal of distortion. I realise that such a statement can bring a hornets' nest around one's ears, and I understand the hornets' nests to be found at Killingholme and elsewhere. I do not retract from what I said previously, but my statement was linked to another matter. When I made it, it was suggested that there was a problem with the submarine nuclear reactors. It was felt that the submarines would have to be decommissioned and that there would therefore have to be a coastal site.
Why should we have an inland site at all? Is there not an argument for having a coastal site? I am friendly with NIREX and many of those who work within it, but I do not understand why it is necessary to bring a hornets' nest to bear and create a great deal of fuss. If the material is as safe as it is claimed to be, why does it have to be deposited in areas of considerable population in certain forms of clay? If it is as safe as those at NIREX say, it could be placed in depopulated areas. There is great confidence in Dounreay on the north coast of Scotland as well as in the Atomic Energy Authority. I wish to emphasise that I am strongly against any sort of under-sea burial, which means that the material cannot be monitored or retrieved.
What about the obligations to the Ministry of Defence when it comes to the decommissioning of submarines? Why cannot the material be concentrated in one coastal site? As others with constituency interests wish to contribute to the debate, I shall now resume my place.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I join all those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on his good fortune in the ballot and on initiating the debate. I congratulate also the three county councils which produced the report that gave rise to the debate.
I think that I am the only hon. Member to have participated in the debate so far who has a constituency near the Fulbeck area, but I shall come to that later. I do not think that the Government or NIREX have gone about matters in the best way if they want to bring public opinion along behind them. They had the advantage of the Select Committee on the Environment's report, the Committee on which I had the honour to serve, in which there was clear guidance on how NIREX and the Government should proceed with the placing of a site.
Having proposed a nuclear site on my doorstep, as it were—the site is technically in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has been in his place throughout the debate and who for reasons of elevation to higher things has had to bear an uncharacteristic Trappist silence—the realities of public anxiety and fear are brought home. In effect, that is what the debate is all about. It reflects a perception that things nuclear are something of which we should be afraid.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman takes issue with NIREX for not heeding the contents of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which he rightly accepts is eminently sensible. Will he bear in mind that that

is hardly surprising when we recall that the Secretary of State for Energy rubbished it the moment it was published?

Mr. Alexander: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of my right hon. Friend's comments on the report. It was clear that he had his reservations, but I do not think it can be said that he rubbished the report.
We should not be debating matters nuclear in general; instead, we should focus on low-level waste disposal. I fear that the way in which we have gone about disposal so far has brought into the anti-nuclear lobby many who have not previously been anti-nuclear which is a great shame. The anti-nuclear lobby has been swollen gratuitously by those who are concerned about the safe disposal of nuclear waste, especially low-level waste.
The Select Committee on the Environment tried to show how the public could be brought behind the industry, not alienated from it. It recommended that it should be accepted that people's fears are genuine and that disposal must be in the form of what it described as a "Rolls-Royce solution." It recommended that we should follow the French example and compensate communities and individuals more than generously, put waste in areas where there is not a high population and keep the stuff away from areas where water can penetrate over hundreds and perhaps thousands of years hence.
Instead NIREX produced proposals which had several common denominators, hardly any of which, so far as I could tell, bore any relation to the safeguards sought by the Select Committee. The common denominators seemed to be that the sites should be placed in areas where the ownership is in the public domain, that they should be in areas of quite high population, that they should be placed in areas where there is a high water table, and that the sites should be in areas of known geological disturbance.
We cannot blame NIREX entirely. I have taken issue on previous occasions with my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department of the Environment generally, but I have been given to understand that NIREX was told that it should not even consider Scotland or Wales. It appears that it was told to confine itself to the part of the United Kingdom that is England. I find that restriction of NIREX's ability to find sites astonishing, bearing in mind that within Scotland and Wales there are areas where the considerations that I have mentioned would be of little concern to the public.
That which the Government and NIREX are proposing is not the "Rolls-Royce" solution. The shallow burial proposals are considered by the experts to be safe, and I have no personal scientific knowledge on which to base an argument that they are not, save to say that the only countries using the method are those that have dry ground and dry climates. In parts of the United States where that method has been used, I understand that it has been abandoned because of the incidence of water in the area. Those examples do not augur well for public confidence.
So the county councils went to see for themselves, and in the countries that they visited—Sweden, France and West Germany—they found that hardly any of them were willing to risk shallow trench disposal such as we propose. They found that all those countries were going for what we call the Rolls-Royce solution. In Sweden, the councils found that it was proposed to spend about £125 million on deep underground and deep sea disposal facilities.
In a useful and interesting briefing that NIREX gave to many hon. Members this weekend, NIREX says that if one were to adopt the deep sea disposal method it would cost £500 million. I suggest that the difference between the amount of money that we are proposing to spend and what it would cost to use the deep sea method is minimal when one takes into account the amount spent in our nuclear industry. Thus, we should go for that solution and abide by it. We should take note of the findings in that excellent report and of what was said by the county councillors who went abroad.
In deference to your injunction. Mr. Speaker, I propose to be brief. In conclusion, it is totally wrong that cost and convenience should be the determinant factors in this case. Unless we adopt the Swedish system, more people will believe that cost and convenience are the determinant factors. The Government cannot stand back and say, "So what. Our experts say that it is safe. We must follow what we are told now." Experts over the centuries have been wrong, and they may well be wrong again. The public must be reassured. If they are not behind the nuclear industry in all its aspects, we are building up problems for ourselves for many years to come. The public need reassurance. The county councils' report showed how that reassurance could be achieved. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham urge that the report be accepted. I believe that nothing less will now reassure them.

Dr. Michael Clark: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. Time is pressing on, so I shall condense my speech considerably and make just a few points.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on his motion. I am the only Member representing an Essex constituency in the House this afternoon. My constituency is adjacent to Bradwell, which has been referred to several times, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who pointed his finger towards Bradwell as a suitable site. I dare say that we are all pointing fingers at one another's locations and saying that that is the most suitable site, so I should like to defend Bradwell. I speak as a friend of the nuclear industry. I am not in any way against it, or, indeed, the proposals for dumping low level waste. While we have a nuclear industry it has to be done, and we must find a site for it somewhere.
I am not opposed to the site being at Bradwell on safety grounds. Indeed, I have every confidence in NIREX and in the nuclear installations inspectorate, but I do not believe that Bradwell is a suitable site. The NIREX report says that it has to find a site where the geology is suitable and where there is a low level of water movement in the ground. We know that in the past Bradwell has suffered earthquakes, so there will be movement of the geological formation. Water will be moving more than we want for the site of a nuclear repository. NIREX has also said voluntarily that it wants its sites to be away from high densities of population, so Bradwell, which is close to the whole of south-east Essex with its half million population, hardly seems to qualify on those grounds.
Conservation is another of NIREX's criteria. Bradwell is an ancient site. It has early Christian connections, with a little church that was built there. Also, accessibility to the Bradwell site is poor. There is only one road to the site, and it is not suitable to take the several lorries that would

be required every day. I also object to the site being at Bradwell because south-east Essex has already taken a large amount of rubbish from London and southern England. My objection is on the same grounds as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and others, including the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). The question has been asked: would anyone volunteer for the site to be in his constituency? I would not volunteer for it to be in my constituency or anywhere near it, not because I think that it is unsafe or because there may be some radioactive danger, but because it is yet one more waste tip, and Essex has plenty already, both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). On those grounds, I object strongly to the site being at Bradwell.
I congratulate the County Councils Coalition and its report. The councils have done a workmanlike job in making their proposals and recommendations. They have been critical of NIREX and full of praise for institutions abroad, but they have not come up with a firm alternative proposal. They say that the NIREX proposals are not good enough and they concede—certainly in private conversation—that there must be a nuclear dump site somewhere, but they do not come up with the engineered site that they want, where it should be or how it should be instituted.
There is no doubt that we must have a site somewhere in this country, where it will be safe. During the autumn, for medical reasons, I had to undergo 12 X-rays. I made inquiries and found out that those X-rays gave me as much radioactivity as if I had been sitting on the edge of a low level nuclear repository for 20 to 30 years. One would have to sit there for every hour of every day for 20 or 30 years to get as much radioactivity as I had in my 12 X-rays.
Therefore, the sites are not dangerous. We must be cautious. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). We are pro-nuclear industry as long as it is a safe nuclear industry, but we must make sure that the sites that are selected are proper. Those of us who have had enough rubbish in our constituencies one way and another do not want this site added to them.

6.38

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): It will have been apparent to the faithful Members of the House who have sat through the debate that I am not in the best of health. I hope that the fact that I had to shoot out of the Chamber from time to time during hon. Members' speeches will be recognised for what it was—the need for reinforcement of cough mixture. On one occasion, a lurid pink pill was given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who is in charge of such matters. It has made me feel very peculiar indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has done the House a service by giving us the chance to have a relatively relaxed debate on the subject in which, if not all at least the majority of those who wished to speak have spoken. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that and on his motion, which is level-headed and sensible. I want to make one or two points in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and, although the other speeches were important, in one


sense this is my hon. Friend's day. I accept the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made so eloquently about compensation. I have nothing to announce to the House today with regard to that. However, he is aware that NIREX has been considering the possibility of further compensation. I hope that it will be possible for NIREX to announce further measures soon. I am sure that NIREX will take account of the comments made by my hon. Friend today and the correspondence he referred to from two of his constituents.
It is difficult to assess what in particular has affected property values in a specific area. An estate agent may take one view. I have consulted the district valuer who said that he believes that the village of South Killingholme is affected primarily by factors other than the proposed nuclear waste dump. However, these views must, to some extent, be subjective. We must carefully examine what compensation is available to a community which may have to take a facility. I say "may" because we must always remember that it is possible that the inquiry will find that none of the sites is satisfactory. However, if any of the communities had to take the facility, it would be fair to ensure that there was no individual damage to people in terms of property values.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and hon. Members who have spoken representing constituencies in affected counties have drawn our attention to the county councils' report. I am in some difficulty with regard to the report. I have great respect for Environmental Resources Ltd. which my Department uses frequently. The founder of that company is one of the most distinguished environmentalists in the country. I am sure that the company could have produced a very eloquent report if we had been considering the Swedish solution which has been referred to today—and that is not exactly a deep mine, rather a shallow burial site under the sea—and there may well have been a coalition of seaside towns which might have commissioned ERL. The company would have produced first-rate scientists who were willing to sign the report claiming that the Government were not only crazy but extravagant and absurd to consider that option. They would claim that we had the best clay in western Europe for such a scheme. The scientists would want to know what we were doing fiddling around with permeable stone just below the seabed when we have a more Rolls-Royce type solution in the clay in this country. It is that crescent of clay which is, above all, the determinant of why the four sites have been chosen for investigation.
As the recipient of so many different protests on these issues, I am aware that powerful arguments can be made against any specific proposal. However, if we had gone down the road and spent what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) described as "only" £500 million, there would have been powerful scientific voices attached to persuasive arguments in the House from those communities claiming that we should be doing the obvious thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to consensus. I do not believe that we would have secured consensus—and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made this point— even if we followed the Swedish solution. I visited Canada and saw

the investigations being carried out at Whiteshell. Whiteshell is miles from anywhere and I stress that spaces are rather bigger in Canada than they are here. However, in Canada they had to tell the local communities that the investigations were only temporary because there was still opposition. I asked the Canadians, "How wide is a back yard in Canada?" I was told that it was at least 150 miles. These matters are somewhat objective.
I was grateful to the county councils for commissioning the report which is very useful. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has made this point to me frequently in the past, will be aware that that is the kind of submission that, once it is greatly fleshed out with further work, will be submissible to the public inquiry on this matter if one or two of the sites are brought forward to a public inquiry.
I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and those of my hon. Friends from Bedfordshire who are by convention allowed to speak so eloquently and those who, by convention, are not allowed to speak but are on the Front Bench to listen to their spokesmen—and I have been interested to discover how easy it has been for silent constituency Members to find eloquence for their views in these matters—that there is no easy way of achieving consensus on this matter. I fear that any proposal will find opposition. One of the satisfactory points about the debate is that we have had a good debate in the Chamber and this point has not run across party lines. Most of my hon. Friends would have taken it for granted that there would have been two views expressed from the Liberal Benches and that is perhaps standard practice. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields is aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is on record as saying that there is nothing inherent in the method of disposal to which the Labour party in the House is opposed, although there may be others outside who take a different view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) made an important and powerful speech. It must have been agonisingly difficult for an all-party Committee to come to what is potentially an unpopular decision. For once they were not going to say that the Government were completely crazy, wrong and loopy on the matter. I have been a member of a Select Committee and I know that there is always a temptation to make up a different policy and claim that the Government should follow the Committee's recommendation. My hon. Friend's Select Committee had the discipline to state that, with one very important proviso about intermediate waste which the Government immediately met, they did not think that the method was necessarily out of court. However, any specific proposal must be tested against the safety criteria.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) characteristically covered much of the important ground in three short points. I want to clarify one or two of his points. The apparent dichotomy on the Swedish safety levels is explained as follows. The Swedish safety level laid down by the regulatory authority is very comparable to that which we are laying down. However, the facility, because of its design, will be 100 times safer than that. We have laid down a safety standard for NIREX. It is very likely, especially after listening to the comments made by hon. Members tonight, that NIREX will engineer a facility which exceeds the one in a million chance that we have laid down. NIREX will want to demonstrate that if it comes


forward to an inquiry. NIREX will show that the system is well below the accepted safety limit, like the Swedish system.

Mr. David Madel: On this question of NIREX and what it might propose, is my hon. Friend able to say after some months of test drilling in Elstow—and, as my hon. Friend will know, Elstow was the first site to be named—whether NIREX is anywhere near any conclusions after all this test drilling?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to make a few comments on that important point. No, NIREX is not yet at the stage when it can announce preliminary results on the test drilling. Test drilling has been continuing since October, as access was obtained only in September. I have been advised that this is the most comprehensive programme of geological investigation work ever undertaken in this country for any purpose. NIREX is not yet able to make preliminary conclusions about the results. After the 12 months and more of drilling, NIREX will need at least another six months of intensive investigation before any final conclusions can be reached. I believe that the consultants employed by the various county councils will confirm that— as the relations between the geologists and the consultants have been warm and close— that a very thorough investigation of the geology is being carried out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) made a point which was echoed in a powerful letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is in America today, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), the Chief Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford recounted the arguments about the unsuitability of the geology. The investigations will set out to test those points. NIREX has sensibly said that if, early on, it was to find something surprising which showed that a site was a wash-out, it would drop consideration of that site in order not to prolong any anxiety in the community.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned submarines. We thought it important to make that change in response to public pressure, which was led by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), who said that we must have the widest comparison of sites before a public inquiry. As two types of solution are available—seaside and inland sites—it would be fair to consider both alongside each other. If an inland site was chosen, the Ministry of Defence would have to find another site for its submarine waste. But nothing would go into those sites except low-level waste, so the reactor cores of submarines are not part of this discussion. They would have to be disposed of as intermediate and high-level waste at some time in the future.

Mr. Dalyell: At another British coastal site?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is possible.
So many points were made in the debate that I may have to search Hansard to make sure that I have taken them all on board. The point that my hon. Friends have been repeating is that they want to assure their constituents that the inquiry will be serious and that no secret decision has been taken in advance to fix the entire matter. 1 give them that assurance. It is not penny-pinching to say that, with Britain's geology, clay is the best

solution. We do not have the large salt mines that the Germans have, nor the remote sites of Sweden, but we have some of the best clay in Europe and, for a variety of chemical and engineering reasons, clay is extremely helpful in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green was kind enough to say that the Government had listened to several important points made by the Select Committee, as we listened when deciding to go for the special development order. I should tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that the purpose of the SDO was somewhat to diminish the period of blight that might lie over a community. If there were two large inquiries, one after the other, it would place intolerable pressure on those communities. After listening to representations, especially from Bedfordshire, we decided on that approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made an important point about international standards and research. We are extremely closely in touch with the Commission of the European Community and other international organisations, and I will ask my officials to consider carefully having closer contacts with the science and technology committee of NATO. That would seem to be a sensible solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) made a characteristically learned and robust speech. He has a deep knowledge of the industry. He said that the principal independent advisory organisations have all said that this method of disposal should be safe if it is done properly. The question whether it is done properly must be examined at the public inquiry with the specific proposal and site in mind.
I repeat that an important change that we made after reading the Select Committee's report was our undertaking not to include intermediate level waste, which greatly increased the inherent safety margins. That was an important watershed. I urge hon. Members to be a little chary of the argument that it does not matter what we spend, but we must buy public acceptability and consensus. I have come to the conclusion that there will be no consensus. Even in Canada, when the sites were miles away from anywhere, anxieties remained. If we were proposing the Swedish method, we would not be having a very different debate in the House today. Different hon. Members would have taken part, but the debate would have been the same. The Rolls-Royce solution in British terms may—we must test this at the inquiry—involve clay. It is the sensible way of absorbing radiation and retarding water.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and I clashed a little over personalities, but., apart from that, we have avoided clashes in this debate, which I welcome. I was touched by the joint succour I hat was offered to me by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—an unusual combination on any subject other than this. But they united in this instance against the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, and I was grateful to them for that.
The Government have listened and will continue to listen. We shall scan the Hansard report of the debate carefully, because I am conscious that I may not have had time to answer all the points. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the debate so carefully and in such a scholarly way.

Mr. Michael Brown: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his speech. He listened to every speech made during the debate, and I am only sorry that he was unable to hear speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). They were both here throughout the debate and have taken an interest in the sites in Bedfordshire and in Fulbeck, Lincolnshire, for several years. I am grateful to them and to others for attending the debate. It shows how right I was to select this subject. Although we have been short of time, we have not been short of contributors.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) says about these matters because he has taken on the Department of the Environment and won the battle on behalf of his constituents. He has been a doughty fighter for them and I hope that I can learn from his experience. What he has achieved for his constituents is what I, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) wish to achieve for our constituents. We can all follow his example.
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). However, as my hon. Friends told him, it does not accord with the actions of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who supported the recommendation of the Select Committee. I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who is Chairman of the Select Committee. I disagree with his assessment, but his interpretation of the Select Committee report was correct. I was most grateful for what he said about the need for compensation. Although I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister can go no further than the representations that I have already made to him—I

am glad that he acknowledged them today—I hope that he will be swayed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green.
I was grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He did not depart from the statement made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in answer to me last year. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr.Mitchell) to the fact that, whatever the Labour party may have decided outside the House, the hon. Member for South Shields, in a measured speech, did not dissociate himself from the comments made by the hon. Member for Copeland in May last year.
This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to all those hon. Members who took the trouble to speak about an issue that is important to us all. From what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, I understand that we shall return to the subject in the near future. It looks as though we shall soon have a debate on the report from the Select Committee on the Environment and that we shall have a debate on Sizewell B. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that I still want him to change his policy and that I shall continue to fight to that end, but I am grateful for what he has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the report prepared for the County Councils of Humberside, Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire regarding the disposal of low level nuclear waste; notes the coalition's view based on an international comparative study that: (i) there are better technical alternatives than those presented by UK Nirex for the disposal of such wastes which may also be used for intermediate level waste; (ii) the overall cost of alternatives may be greater than for a shallow repository but would be less than one per cent. of the costs of nuclear electricity generation; and (iii) if public acceptance is to be gained a truly convincing solution to the disposal of low and intermediate level nuclear waste must be found; and urges Her Majesty's Government to give full consideration to this report before final decisions are taken regarding the disposal of nuclear waste.

Hospital Closures (Lancashire)

Mr. Peter Pike: I beg to move,
That this House is concerned at all the hospital closures now under consideration in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Health Authority area; is particularly concerned at the possible closure of Victoria Hospital, Burnley which celebrated its centenary in 1986; recognises that the Health Authority is having to consider these closures as a result of unacceptable financial revenue restraints; accepts the need for improved health service provision in the area as identified in the District Medical Officer's Annual Report; and believes that additional financial resources should be made available fully to meet the needs of the community in the area and to ensure that all the existing hospitals remain open.
I do not have time to start to develop my argument, but Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale have a very strong case for additional Health Service resources and we deeply deplore the proposed closures.

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

Alternative Land Use

7 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, and following the exchanges which took place in your presence in the House earlier this afternoon, I am happy to make a statement.
The Government have been considering very carefully the consequences for agriculture and for the rural economy of changes in the common agricultural policy. We have concluded that, given the scale of agricultural surpluses now facing us, a new balance of policies is needed. This will entail less support for expanding production, more attention to the demands of the market, more encouragement for alternative uses of land, more response to the claims of the environment, and more diversity on farms and in the rural economy. To assist the process of change, I am announcing a number of new policy initiatives. Details are set out in a written answer today, but I shall briefly describe what is planned.
First, a new scheme will be introduced to encourage the development of farm woodlands which will take some land out of agricultural production. The detailed arrangements will be the subject of consultation with interested parties prior to the introduction of appropriate legislation, but the scheme will incorporate provisions for the protection and enhancement of the environment.
Secondly, the Government propose an expansion of the forestry programme, with particular emphasis on the private sector and with due regard to environmental considerations. The planting of a higher proportion of trees on low ground of better quality will also be encouraged.
Thirdly, the Government will be designating further environmentally sensitive areas under section 18 of the Agriculture Act 1986. We have already designated nine areas and our intention is to extend the coverage of this scheme and to double the funding from early in 1988.
Fourthly, diversification of enterprise on farms will be encouraged by the introduction of a scheme under section 22 of the Agriculture Act 1986, providing for the grant-aiding of ancillary businesses on or adjacent to farms. There will also be extra help for marketing of the products of diversified businesses.
Fifthly, within my budget for research, development and advice I shall be placing more emphasis on the possibilities for novel crops and livestock and on the socioeconomic and environmental implications of the changing farming scene.
Sixthly, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have today put out for consultation a draft circular containing guidance on the future planning regime for agricultural land. It will include more encouragement to local authorities to take a positive attitude to diversification and to the conversion of redundant farm buildings.
In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland and I plan to publish next month a document describing how the Government's policies towards farming are being adjusted to reflect the changing scene and potential in the rural economy as a whole. I shall of course make this available to the House. It will make clear that the


Government's overall objective is to facilitate the conditions which encourage a healthy rural economy based on enterprise, adaptability and fair competition.

Mr. Brynmor John: If nothing concentrates the mind so wonderfully as being hanged in the morning I must conclude that, for the Government, the same is true of votes of censure at the National Farmers Union annual meeting. How else is one to explain this proposal, belated and inadequate as it is, to try to address the ever-mounting surpluses in European Economic Community regimes? We can all agree that the statement goes nowhere towards meeting that problem, and we get here no clear idea of what the Government think the country should grow, how much it should grow or what quality it should be.
Is this really the Government's great set-aside scheme, which has been trailed for so many months? I must therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman by how much he thinks what he has proposed will reduce our surpluses, what crops will be reduced and when will the reductions start. To many people this appears not to be a serious attempt to solve the problem.
I received the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), so I am rather better informed than the House was by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Even if all the land that is proposed in the forestry scheme is taken out of production—15,000 hectares a year for the next three years—it is less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of all agricultural land in the country.
The statement does not go any way to meet the size of the problem. Rather, it is a series of governmental lollipops or pilot schemes. It will cost £25 million a year, which is less than the cost of running the intervention board and much less than the £650 million that it costs taxpayers to subsidise the sale of EEC butter stocks to Russia.
What is the status of this paper? We heard from the Minister of State earlier this year of the structures programme which it was proposed would be agreed on an EEC basis. This is clearly a national programme, involving national money. Does that mean that the EEC programme has still to be agreed, or has it been abandoned?
We read in the press colourful items about golf courses and houses, but they were not mentioned in the statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, by saying that the draft circular will go out for consultation, he means that he intends to build more homes and golf courses on agricultural land? If so, does that apply to Scotland? How will it solve the problems of remote hill farming areas? Will it not merely add to pressure for housing where it is already great?
Perhaps I might press the right hon. Gentleman on the time scale. Normally, there is consultation before proposals are made. Here we have a proposal to consult afterwards. How long will consultations take? Are the proposals open to change? When will legislation be introduced? Debate about these matters has raged for some time. The Government have been absent from that debate, which is perhaps why the statement is so short. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has asked a great many questions and I detect a good deal of sour grapes in his comments. He just wishes that his party could have come out with such an imaginative scheme.
The hon. Gentleman said that the statement goes nowhere towards saying what should be grown on farms. That is not its purpose. It tries to suggest schemes for alternative arrangements on farms to deal with the difficulties which all farmers will face as a result of bringing agricultural production back closer to the level of consumption.
The hon. Gentleman said that 15,000 hectares of extra forestry is not enough. I have heard that some environmentalists are saying that it is too much. If he is saying one thing and others are saying another, I think that we have probably got it just about right.
When the scheme starts to operate properly it will cost £25 million in a full year. The hon. Gentleman must remember that it is assistance to farmers who want to set up alternative enterprises and is in the form of pump priming to allow them to find new, alternative enterprises which they have not previously undertaken.
The hon. Gentleman asked where the role of set-aside was in all this and he will have studied the proposals that I made last summer on diverting land from cereals production. Forestry within these proposals is entirely separate. Our proposals on growing trees are not likely to appeal to people who are growing grain. That is another scheme altogether. The growing of trees under these proposals will be much more attractive to people in the marginal areas who are producing beef and sheepmeat.
The hon. Gentleman said that he envisaged these proposals as a national programme—that is right—and asked what was happening to the Community's socio-structural package and whether it had gone out of the window. Of course, it has not. It is being debated in Brussels today and tomorrow and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is involved in those discussions. I hope that the Council of Ministers will come to a conclusion on it during this meeting. We tried to reach an agreement on it in December, and I hope that we shall soon get that scheme.
That scheme brings within the Community schemes such as our national scheme for environmentally sensitive areas, which the hon. Gentleman has applauded and welcomed in the past. While at present we are doubling the size of those schemes, the Community is hoping for the first time to make financial assistance available to environmentally sensitive areas. That means that it is following us in the initiatives that we have taken.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme applies to Scotland. We shall be consulting on certain parts of the scheme, particularly on farm forestry, and we shall discuss that with regard to payments, the size of plantations and the length of time for which these income supports will be available. That consultation will start soon.

Sir Peter Mills: I welcome and congratulate my right hon. Friend on this initiative. Obviously, this is the start and we must build on it, as a tremendous amount must be done in rural areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who live in rural areas must help and encourage rural industries to flourish? Does he further agree that it is important to remember that


we cannot live on fresh air and a view? Indeed, in this area he needs to give strong guidance to planning and assistance, otherwise there could be genuine difficulties.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I agree that it is extremely important for people living in rural areas to encourage the expansion of the rural economy. I remind him of the encouragement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has given to planning authorities to support proposals to put old farm buildings to new uses. I hope that in future planners in rural areas will pay more attention to the need to expand the rural economy, whether on-farm or off-farm.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister realise that this statement will be bitterly disappointing to farmers, whose incomes have suffered a real decline since the Government came to office and which will be unchecked by anything that he has said today? Does he recognise that all those who are anxious to see the diversification of the rural economy will be equally disappointed that he has found not a single additional pound of public expenditure to achieve this? Does he recognise that the modest £25 million of redistributed public funds set beside the cut in institutional prices of £571 million this year, the cut of £47 million in the Government's structural spending and the cut of £3 million on research and advice will seem more like an insult than assistance?
How can the Minister believe that anyone will be induced to plant under the woodland scheme, which he has announced in advance the Government will review in three years' time, no doubt with further cuts in public spending on it and the forestry project? Does he not realise that in 1980 the Government announced a proposed planting programme of 30,000 hectares a year and that they have failed to achieve that by 7,000 hectares a year? Why should we believe that there is anything more in this than an attempt to stave off justified criticisms from farmers at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union tomorrow?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman is suffering from the same overdose of sour grapes as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). It seems that the only way he can criticise the package is to say that he would have liked it better if it had been bigger. That is not constructive. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was disappointed, but I do not believe that farmers will be disappointed with the scheme. If any of them should be mildly disappointed, they will not be half as disappointed as they all were at the disastrous speech that the Leader of the SDP made in Cirencester recently, which would have sold British agriculture all the way down the river.
With regard to the financing of the scheme, we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. These are firm decisions which stand by themselves. We are moving towards a lower level of CAP support, which will mean substantive savings in public expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman asked a constructive question at the end about how it might be possible to increase the level of traditional forestry. That will happen because we intend to make available more land further down the hill, which does not offend environmentalists so much as does traditional planting on hillsides, where traditional forestry is more productive and profitable, and trees grow better.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the statement was not wholly expected. I ask for brief questions, as we have other important business before us this evening.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend accept the welcome and thanks of Conservative Members for the statement? Will he confirm that this is a serious attempt to sustain the income of those who live in rural areas, including farmers and other persons? Furthermore, will he confirm that but for the appalling White Papers produced by the Labour Government in 1979 and 1975 we would by now have a policy which was relevant to the requirements of the rural economy? Will he confirm that the rating proposals of both the Labour and alliance parties will inevitably lead to a serious reduction in the opportunities for farmers to sustain their incomes?

Mr. Jopling: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the policies which are trickling out from the various Opposition parties, whether on land nationalisation, rating, or the utterly catastrophic proposals of the leader of the SDP for a two-tier price system.

Miss Joan Maynard: Will not taking controls off all agricultural land except grade 1 mean more intensive farming of the land that is still left in agriculture, and more damage to the environment? What proposals does the Minister have to deal with such problems as the pollution of our water by nitrates? Should he not be encouraging less intensive chemical farming and more low input, environmentally sound and labour-intensive farming, instead of introducing these disgraceful proposals?

Mr. Jopling: With respect, the hon. Lady would have been better occupied if she had carefully read what we have announced. There is no question of removing planning proposals on all land except grade 1, as she suggested. That is a million miles from the truth. What is proposed is that, because since the war we have had a system within our planning arrangements for agricultural considerations which were given birth to in the period of food shortages and are still applied at a time when we have serious food surpluses it makes no sense to apply agricultural reservations on less good land which is being proposed for development. When planning committees, which will continue to operate in exactly the same way as before, are considering any proposals for the less good land, it must be sensible, in this day of food surpluses, for them no longer to have to go through the rigmarole of asking about the agricultural implications of developing such land.
The hon. Lady went on to talk about the need for lower input farming. I draw her attention to the proposals for doubling the spending on environmentally sensitive areas, which is doing what she is asking us to do.

Sir Hector Monro: I welcome this important extension of the rural economy, which must be complementary to profitable agriculture. Will my right hon. Friend accept that those interested in conservation of the scenic beauty of the heritage will warmly welcome his constructive proposals, particularly those for environmentally sensitive areas? Will the Government bring home


to planning authorities that they must be more flexible about building in areas of less significance if we are to make any progress?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and, particularly because of his experience as a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, for his welcome to our proposals on increasing the environmentally sensitive areas. I am glad that he drew our attention to the necessity to tell planners of the need to be flexible, to bear in mind the requirements of the rural economy and to encourage that activity. I am sure that he will be aware of the recent circular from the Department of the Environment, to which I referred earlier, which gives encouragement to planning committees to do their utmost to support and grant permission to applications to make use of redundant farm buildings.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not the case that the increase in surpluses and the ever-growing cost of the CAP have been accompanied by a disastrous collapse in employment in rural areas? Therefore, will the Minister accept that all those who are concerned with the stability of the rural economy will welcome the forward-looking proposals produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and his colleagues? Anybody who compares that with these proposals will come to the conclusion that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman has botched and bungled it.

Mr. Jopling: It seems that the hon. Gentleman has eaten a bigger dose of sour grapes than has the hon. Member for Pontypridd. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the proposals he will see that there are a number of points that will be helpful for rural employment, such as the assistance that we are proposing with diversification of farm businesses. If we are to have the threat before us of land no longer being used for food production, it is surely good for employment and the rural economy that we should be encouraging more trees to be grown on such land. Here again, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the employment opportunities that there could be in that.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his intention to bring forward a document early next month will be welcome in the industry, which has been waiting for a long time for just such guidance from him? Does he also agree that his action in respect of section 22 of the Agriculture Act will be welcome and should lead to a greatly enhanced set of employment opportunities in the countryside? However, will he maintain flexibility under his budget headings so that if one aspect of his plan achieves better success than another, it is not inhibited by lack of funds in that direction when there are funds lying available in another sector?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm welcome to the proposals. The policy document that we intend to produce in March will deal with a number of other wider agricultural issues. This proposal is more limited in providing new opportunities. I am also grateful for his endorsement of the point that I made a moment ago with regard to the proposals for the diversification of farm businesses, following section 22 of the 1986 Act. This will

undoubtedly provide opportunities for farmers to use their facilities and their food products to get some added value and at the same time create more investment in rural areas, and therefore more jobs.

Mr. Ron Davies: Why has the Minister deliberately withheld from the House the full details of his proposals to release agricultural land for housing development?

Mr. Jopling: I have not made any proposals. What I said, if he hon. Gentleman was here— I do not remember—was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be issuing today a draft consultative document to discuss these changes. I have kept nothing from the House.

Mr. Charles Morrison: What temporary income arrangements may be available where land is set aside for farmed woodlands? Does diversification include the breeding of ponies and horses?

Mr. Jopling: We shall be consulting on the amount available for farmed woodlands, but our annual figures will vary. Because the amount of income lost by farmers will vary from the less good land to the rather better land, in the better land, where the loss of income will be greatest, we shall be thinking in terms of £125 per hectare, and we shall be discussing this with the industry. We shall be anxious to support diversification into projects such as pony trekking, but we shall have to look carefully at horse breeding.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Minister accept that, as the food surpluses are not produced in marginal land, his policy may prove worthless in affecting the common agricultural policy? To show that it is worthless, does he not perceive the real danger of the threat to the green belt that is implicit in his statement, which may provide Britain with a glimpse of a future countryside under the Conservatives as one for the conifer and concrete? Many people engaged and interested in conservation will find his statement deplorable.

Mr. Jopling: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should see fit to repeat what I regard as irresponsible reports which have appeared recently in the press with regard to the green belt. There is nothing at all in the Government's proposals which reduces the protection given to the green belt. The same goes for the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other environmentally important areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some pleasure from that and will not go on repeating the foolish reports that we have read.
As for surpluses not being created on marginal land, a good deal of marginal land is producing milk and beef, both of which are in surplus. Those who are farming on land that is not so good are the ones who are most concerned and anxious at this time. Those farmers will feel that they have not been forgotten and that we have made specific plans to help them to develop alternative enterprises.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the whole House knows, there is heavy pressure on time this evening. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes, and then we must move on. That will mean that Back Benchers will have had a full half hour.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), I believe that building on this land is the one solution that is unacceptable to this side of the House? Will he accept our congratulations that the otherwise accurate report in The Observer is hotly denied on this point by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words. I agree with him that building per se is not unacceptable. The key point is that it should be controlled under our planning system, and the best land will continue to be controlled in exactly the same way. All that we are suggesting is that the agricultural considerations should be diminished on the less good land, but the planners will continue to apply all the other yardsticks which they have hitherto applied.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that in rural Cheshire the suggestion that to build houses will somehow deal with persistent rural unemployment will be met with absolute astonishment? Farmers need clear financial targets and, above all, a complete renegotiation of the milk quotas and of the absolutely unacceptable scheme which the Minister has taken on board from Brussels.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Lady has not been listening. Either she has not heard or she has not read what has been said about this proposal. Nobody has remotely suggested that there is to be an open door to the building of houses on agricultural land. That is in nobody's minds. It is only in the minds of those who, like the hon. Lady, ask questions like that purely for the purpose of making trouble.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend seek to direct the compensation and planning benefits of his proposals, which are very much welcomed, to the needs of the existing agricultural community? In the document that is to appear in March, will he try to announce, as a continuing policy, that the anomaly of the green pound should be avoided wherever possible? Will he confirm that these proposals are not part of any encouragement to over-develop in the south of England, which would benefit neither the agriculture industry nor those who live in rural areas?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the planning proposals. The green pound is not referred to in my statement. However, the Government are conscious of the developments regarding the green pound.
My hon. Friend also asked for an assurance that this is not just a recipe for over-development in the south of England. Of course it is not. It merely relieves planning authorities from the need to have to consider outdated considerations based on food shortages rather than on food surpluses.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister say whether his statement represents Government policy, as there is no Welsh Office Minister in the Chamber? Will he also explain what is new about this policy, as he is now only implementing what he told us he could not do under the Agriculture Act 1986 regarding the number of environmentally sensitive areas? Will he also tell the House why he thinks that agricultural

support and rural development are two different aspects and that people can be switched from one to the other? Diversification has been art ongoing problem for many years for most of the marginal farmers in the rural area that I represent. Will the Minister explain how these policies are in any sense new? In particular, how will the support for forestry provide new jobs, when forestry jobs have been collapsing in the countryside for the last 30 years?

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a jaundiced view of all this. He asked what is new about the proposals. When we first introduced the concept of environmentally sensitive areas we received such a warm reception from virtually every hon. Member that we felt that we had to take it step by step. We allotted a certain amount of money last year to the scheme, and we have already designated nine environmentally sensitive areas in the United Kingdom. We have now decided to devote more money to the scheme. That is what is new.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what is new about diversification. My answer is very simple. The hon. Gentleman said that this had been an ongoing problem in his constituency for many years, but it has been an ongoing problem in many constituencies for many years. What is new is that we are announcing a scheme whereby, once it is working fully, £5 million a year will be allotted to diversification on farms. That is new, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to welcome it.

Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the draft circular that is being published today will in no way open up the countryside to uncontrolled development? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a taxation problem for those farmers who are switching their activities? Will he examine the possibility of some reduction of taxation and capital gains when farmers switch over, as the Government want them to do?

Mr. Jopling: I can give an assurance straight away that in no conceivable way is this a recipe for uncontrolled development. Nothing could be further from the truth. On taxation, my hon. Friend will know that my stock reply is that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it should be made clear that the majority of those whom we expect will be interested in the farm woodland proposals will not be the kind of people whose personal taxation means that their approach to the growing of trees can be compared with the approach of those who grow trees on a very much larger scale.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the broad thrust of his statement, but is he aware that there are now disturbing signs that some farmers are declaring buildings redundant in order to get round planning application permission and selling them off as second homes? Will he assure the House that in no way will any of the encouragement to which he referred lead to planning authorities having to abandon their normal planning systems?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend's statement include any help for those who live by commoning? I know that recntly he visited the New Forest and therefore he will


know that many of those who live by depasturing their animals are having a difficult time. Is there anything in this scheme for them?

Mr. Jopling: As to the disturbing signs of buildings being declared redundant so that they may qualify for further development at a later stage, that is not a matter for me. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning is sitting on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will write to him about that. As for help for the commoners, I know that my right hon. Friend is thinking of the New Forest. Again that is not part of this specific scheme, but we have this important area of great environmental beauty very much in mind.

Mr. John Evans: As most of the EC food surpluses are created by our European partners, can the Minister tell us whether they are adopting measures similar to those that he has announced to take agricultural land out of production?

Mr. Jopling: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not exactly correct when he says that our European partners produce the surpluses. I invite him to go to the Library and look up the surpluses that have been created in Britain. If he does that he will see that we are building up many of the surpluses.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend categorically deny the report in The Observer yesterday that the presumption against house building on agricultural land is to be abandoned and that housing estates, each of up to 100 acres, will be allowed in future? Does he agree that if such a thing were to happen nothing could be less appropriate than to surround an environmentally sensitive area such as the South Downs with a concrete jungle on the Weald of Sussex?

Mr. Jopling: I can assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of that article was a very long way from the truth. The suggestion that it made of opening up land for the building of houses on the scale that he mentions is utterly untrue. I repeat again that the principal change is that it is no longer appropriate to say that on less good land there should not be development because it may be needed for food production. There may well be other reasons which could cause the planners to refuse permission for building on that land, but it is nonsense nowadays to say that permission should be refused because the land might be needed for food production.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister alluded to the good work of the Development Commission in the countryside. How much will its budget be increased as a result of his proposals? Will the Minister confirm that the report in The Observer was basically true, and that the presumption against house building on agricultural grade 3 land downwards will be lifted, thus meaning that if a

democratically elected local authority refuses planning permission, on appeal the Secretary of State would have to reverse that decision? In view of the full attendance in the House, does the Minister accept how badly he misjudged the feeling of the country in trying to sneak through this announcement?

Mr. Jopling: There is no question of trying to sneak it through. That is a ridiculous idea. The hon. Gentleman was in the House and knows that I came straight to the Dispatch Box and said that if the House wanted a statement I would be more than delighted to provide one.
I know that the hon. Gentleman pays great attention to these matters, but, with respect, he has made it clear that he has not fully understood the proposals about planning matters. I hope that he will write or put questions to my hon. Friend from the Department of the Environment. We can supply him with a copy of the draft consultative paper, and from that he will discover that the point he made in his question is a long way from the truth. Before he asks any more questions he should make himself more familiar with that paper.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I assure those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call in the last 45 minutes that I shall bear them in mind when we return to this subject, as undoubtedly we will.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the time that you have given the House on this important matter. You will have heard the last exchange. Many hon. Members are far from clear about the impact on planning and about matters relating to the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Could you or anyone else in the House tell us whether we may expect a statement tomorrow from the Secretary of State or from one of his Ministers on the precise implications for planning in the rural areas?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. However, the hon. Gentleman has made the point and no doubt those on the Front Bench will have heard what was said.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a long run and I have called the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davies: May I draw your attention to the wording of the reply from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that now. That would be a clear continuation of questions on the statement and would be unfair to those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call. I think that all hon. Members would agree with that. I also called the hon. Gentleman during Welsh questions. He raised the matter then and has had ample time on it.

Orders of the Day — Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 32(2) OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1986

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, at end add
'and there shall be added at the end of section 32(2) of that Act the words "provided that the amounts prescribed under paragraph (a) of this subsection in respect of maternity expenses shall be sufficient, subject to prescribed deductions in respect of the resources of the claimant, to meet the cost of prescribed items".'.
On Second Reading the Government sought to suggest that the proposals that the Bill embodies for the second time are logical and consistent. However, despite the small compass of the Bill, the Government have succeeded in putting forward proposals which are innately contradictory. The Government claim that their purpose is to target help—to use their phrase—at those in greatest need. So far they have leaned heavily on the fact that a wider group than those people who are now eligible for supplementary benefit and who in the future to be eligible for income support will, under these proposals, be eligible for assistance. That is not the same wide group as that which is eligible for assistance with funeral and maternity expenses. My first question to the Government is: why not?
For funeral expenses people drawing income support, family credit or housing benefit will be eligible if they meet the other criteria of limited capital. As the Government have explained on many occasions, they want to ensure that all people on low incomes are treated alike. Maternity expenses can be claimed only by those who receive income support or family credit, and not by those who receive housing benefit. I repeat my question: why not?
The unworthy suspicion arises, as it arose in Committee on a different Bill, that not even this Government think that they can discourage people from dying by reducing the amount available for funeral expenses. However, they hope that providing a wholly insufficient amount for maternity expenses might discourage low-income families from having children. If there is another logical reason for the distinction that the Government make we shall be more than happy to hear it.
The second way in which the proposals are contradictory is the different way in which the amounts are dealt with and assessed. For funeral costs a list of items without a specific check list of costs is included. In effect, that list is much the same as the one for the system of single payments. There is one minor exception about which I should like to probe the Government's intentions. In the new draft regulations there is specific mention of funds being allowed for one return journey either for arrangements to be made for a funeral or for a person to be able to attend a funeral. On the face of it, it is hard to

see why someone who is charged with the arrangements for a funeral and, presumably, has difficulty in meeting the cost of such travel should be forced to choose between arrangement and attendance. That is one of the areas that we should like the Government to reconsider.
A list of items of maternity expenses also exists under single payment regulations. To put it mildly, they are not over-generous. The Government recognise that they are not over-generous, because until last summer the guidance given in regulation 7103 of the S manual which deals with these matters specifically says, "The following is not a comprehensive list". The paragraph goes on to say that
these are the items which will most commonly need to be considered:—
The same paragraph of the S manual says that an adjudication officer may
Make a single payment for any other items necessary to meet the baby's needs.
Before last summer the Government recognised that even this list might be inadequate to meet the needs of a newborn child.
In August, the Government issued fresh guidance in circular 20/86, presumably to tide them over during the run-up to the regulations, which may have been withdrawn but the basis of which we are considering in the debate on this paving Bill. The Government issued another list which was almost identical to the previous one. It covered essentially the same grounds but was somewhat more restrictive than the previous one. This time the list was said to be an "exhaustive" list of items for which a single payment might be made. In other words, anything outside the list would not even be considered. Paragraph 9.1 in the circular stated:
no other item is now provided for by regulation 7".
Some time between the issuing of the original single payment regulations and last August the Government decided that babies needed rather less provision than in the past. The provision which the Government thought as late as last August to be necessary for babies—it was not over-generous—was three sleeping suits, one pram suit, three pairs of plastic pants, one baby bath and three cot sheets. It has often been suggested that a determined baby can get through some of those items in a short period.
Not only are the items listed in number but the suggested cost per item is given, totaling£187·45. That ties in, to a degree, with the most recent figures last year from the Maternity Alliance for the average payment made under the existing single payment regulations—about £143. The Maternity Alliance pointed out that most mothers said that they had to buy additional items as well as the items which could be provided for from a single payment. Clearly, between £187 and £190 would cover, on a not very generous basis, the items which, until August 1986, the Government thought that a new baby might need.
But now it is February 1987 and we are told that the maximum grant for any mother will be the princely sum of £80. What has happened to new babies since last summer that suddenly they cost half as much as before? Have babies come furnished with new equipment which has not been revealed to us? Clearly, some magical transformation has taken place. Certainly the cost of the items in the original list has not halved.
The Minister said that the purpose of the maternity grant has always been to make "a reasonable contribution" to the cost of maternity. I shall not argue at


the moment whether £80 is a reasonable sum. That comment may have been true of the original maternity grant which could be topped up for the poorest mothers by single payments, but the new grant which we are debating in the Bill and for which the regulations will be laid is not a reasonable contribution; it is the sole contribution available to meet the costs of maternity for low-income mothers. It is not just our opinion that that sum is inadequate. A number of organisations have made representations to the Government pointing out the inadequacy of this sum: the British Medical Association, the Conservative Women's National Committee—presumably, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) who spoke the other evening is not in touch with that organization—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Health Visitors Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Select Committee on Social Services and many others.
The Minister boasts that the Government's intention is to meet the "true" cost of funerals—the "full" cost. The hon. Gentleman spoke recently of the "realistic" help towards the cost of funerals. Why are not the same principles applied to maternity expenses?
Last year, when these proposals were first put forward in another Bill, we asked the Minister the same question. I shall not bore the Committee with the hon. Gentleman's answer, because it was fairly incomprehensible, but he appeared to say that perhaps the Government had decided that, because they were going to give a lump sum only to those on income support, they were going to apply the same principle of giving a lump sum only to those on family credit or family income supplement. That does not even deal with the argument why those on housing benefit are excluded in this case, let alone why the lump sum was thought to be the correct approach. It certainly does not deal with the question why, if a lump sum is appropriate, it should be half or less than half even of the average amount now paid to mothers in equally poor circumstances. The Minister has had six months to think of a better argument. If he is not able to do so, he should reconsider the way in which the regulations were drafted and accept our amendment.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I support the amendment. It is well worth remembering that the parent of the Bill was the Social Security Act 1986, which was described in a derogatory way—certainly in my area—as the result of the Fowler review. At the Labour party conference in 1986, a motion supporting the repeal of that Act was passed by a vote of 6·3 million to 173,000—a 37:1 majority, greatly exceeding the necessary 2:1 majority needed to ensure that when my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) takes up her position in Cabinet as the person responsible for the Ministry of women's rights she has the Labour movement's full support in putting this legislation and its parent in their justifiable place—the dustbin of history.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe regulations to define limits on such items as maternity grants. The £80 for maternity grant, which has been cited in statements, and which, no doubt, will be mentioned later, is woefully inadequate to meet the needs arising from the birth of a child in Britain in 1987. The

grant was woefully inadequate at £25 some 18 years ago when it was first introduced. If the amount had been increased to allow for inflation since 1969, the grant would be about £130 and it would still be inadequate.
The Bill and the Social Security Act which it amends do nothing to tackle the problems of the gradual reduction in maternity benefit over the past few years. Clause 1 would end the right to a statutory grant for about 500,000 women. It aims to prescribe the top limits of the payment. These changes are grafted on to a number of other reductions which have taken place under the Government. They include the 5 per cent. cut some seven years ago in the level of maternity allowance, which saved the Government about £8 million, and the ending of earnings-related supplement in 1982, which saved the Government £35 million. We are now talking about a means-tested substitute for a statutory grant on top of the loss of free milk, vitamins and other cuts in provision which working class women have had to put up with over the past seven years. Those who are in receipt of maternity grant have had their chances of returning to work reduced because the Government have removed the requirement that employers with fewer than 10 employees have to offer a job back to a woman who leaves to have a baby.
A particular group of women will be affected by the legislation—the 200,000 young women on YTS. They do not get the chance to build up the necessary contributions or service to qualify for maternity benefits in general. If I could broaden the debate—a possibility not usually open to me—I should add to the list of pressing restrictions imposed during the past seven years on working class women who are about to have babies. They face the problem of finding child care facilities as the children grow up. Apart from Liverpool council, few councils have had the money in the past seven years to extend child care provision, such as nurseries, creches and play groups. That is the general background.
8 pm
Good quality child care—including maternity and paternity rights, as well as levels of benefit—are essential if men and women are to share the joys and responsibilities of bringing up their children and not be restricted, which is what will happen if the Bill is passed. That is why we need a universal maternity grant that properly reflects the cost of bringing up a baby—£80 does not do that, either in terms of pregnancy and childbirth or in terms of the general cost of raising children.
We have the first woman Prime Minister in Britain, but she has shown, through sponsorship of the Bill and in previous Acts, that she is ruthless in reversing the gains made by working-class women in the past few decades. She might make a few headline comments about individual cases of child abuse, but the Bill represents mass child abuse in terms of the poverty and inadequacy of provision that working-class women and their children have to suffer.
The original amount of benefit was £25. The Bill gives the power to the Secretary of State to raise that to £80. My wife and I had a baby some 18 months ago and we received the £25 benefit. Jane was able to buy two maternity bras, a box of breast pads, some sanitary towels and enough wool to make the baby's first cardigan. That is all that the £25 bought. All the other essential items will not be covered even if the grant is increased to £80. One of the


cheapest cribs these days is £50, one of the cheapest high chairs £48, one of the cheapest playpens £47, and the cheapest fire guard for an open fire is £20—a total cost of £170. My wife and I cannot afford to buy those things. But for the generosity of friends in Coventry who loaned us those four items, we would not have had them. I keep my standard of living at the average factory wage, which in Coventry is £170 or £180 a week gross. We are talking about working-class families for whom £170 or £180 a week would be a dream. If we cannot afford to buy those new things on average factory wages in Coventry, the hundreds of thousands of women who will be caught by the trap in the Bill will have no chance of buying them.
In addition to borrowing some items, we were lucky in that my wife had worked in a department store for 11 years, which entitled her to a 25 per cent. discount off certain items. That possibility is not open to most working-class families or to the unemployed single parents who are caught by the trap. A couple of days before Christmas we bought our daughter, Charlotte, her first pair of shoes. We paid £9·99 for a pair of child's shoes, which will last 10 to 12 weeks if we are lucky. I do not pay £9·99 for my shoes and I expect them to last at least two years. I hope that the next Labour Government—I trust that my two comrades on the Front Bench are taking note of this—will consider providing items such as children's shoes on the National Health. It is essential that a child has shoes that do not stunt the growth of its feet and lead to far worse problems in later life.
The Minister will no doubt tell us that he will generously make the maternity grant £80 if the Bill goes through and gives him the authority and power so to do. I was talking to my local citizens advice bureau a few days ago as part of the preparation for tonight's debates and I asked whether it had any information on the costs of the basic requirements necessary to bring a baby into the world and provide for its first few weeks or months of life. The CAB quoted to me, and I can quote to the Committee, figures for essential basic items for a new baby layette which were worked out by the Health Visitors Association. Even the Minister will recognise that most professionals, such as health visitors, whose daily job is to monitor the development of children, should have an idea of what is essential. The list was costed by the Durham and Derwentside citizens advice bureau after visiting the local Boots shop. The total for the basic kit recommended by the Health Visitors Association came to £241·23p last year—three times the £80 that the Minister intends to offer today.

Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend has given us a number of examples of how people have costed the basic needs of looking after a child in its first few weeks of life. The Government always claim that taking away universal benefit and means testing it—or "targeting" it, as they like to call it—means that they can make that targeting generous enough for the people at the bottom of the pile. My hon. Friend's speech is helpful in showing how false that claim is.

Mr. Nellist: The Government say that the grant is supposed to cover necessary requisites. If the Bill goes through it will give the Government the authority to take the grant away from at least half a million women in Britain.

Mr. Field: Supposedly to provide an adequate benefit.

Mr. Nellist: Yes, supposedly to provide an adequate benefit to bring the child into the world.
The initial costs of bringing up a baby, worked out in March 1984 by the Daily Mirror, came to £444. In November 1985, a magazine called "Parents" estimated that the cost of a new born baby, including baby clothes and equipment, came to £702. It is worth comparing the situation here with what happens in other European countries. In Belgium, all mothers receive £395 for their first child. In France, all mothers receive £70 per month pregnancy allowance. In Luxembourg, all mothers receive a grant of £627. And what are we talking about in this country? A measly £80 from the Government.

Mr. Field: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that that analysis in the Daily Mirror was instigated by the current junior Minister for Transport, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), whose wife so enlivened our debates last week?

Mr. Nellist: I was not aware of that. It should not only be recorded in Hansard but shouted from the roof tops that the initiation of such an exercise produced a figure not far short of £500. However, it seems to have had no impact on the thinking of the Ministers who have proposed this ludicrously low figure of £80.
There are other problems attendant on accepting a figure of £80, because of the way in which the regulations intend that sum to replace the single payments available to mothers. A young woman, who was six months pregnant, came to see me on Saturday morning at my constituency surgery in Coventry. In the last few weeks she has moved into council accommodation, but the furniture regulations of August 1986, which were amended by the original Social Security Act, now preclude her from claiming for a cooker, a bed, sheets, a wardrobe or other necessities of setting up home. She will be able to get some help under the Bill for essential babywear costs, but she will be bringing a baby into an unfurnished, unheated flat with no basic requisites for bringing up a family. Not until she has been on benefit for six or seven months will she be entitled to one or two other additions. That fact was reflected in much of the evidence that the citizens advice bureau in Coventry supplied to me.
What figure ought we to be discussing? If my hon. Friend's amendment were accepted and there was a review of the prescribed items before the figure was finally set, what sort of figure would be come up with? Unfortunately, I have left the booklet that I wished to quote from at home, but on the telephone a few minutes ago I wrote down all the essential points, so I will paraphrase. The Health Education Council perhaps knows more than any other body what is needed to bring a child into the world and to provide for it during its first few weeks of life, and it gives every expectant mother a list of the items that she should get before her baby is born.

Mr. Field: Be careful or the Government will close it down.

Mr. Nellist: As my hon. Friend says, we may be on dangerous ground in quoting the Health Education Council. It may end up being abolished by the Government.
I looked through the list from the Health Education Council and I turned to what I hope the few Tory Members present will regard as an ideologically sound


source of prices—the current Mothercare catalogue. That produced the following list: two dozen terry nappies—£21; six pins—56p; 50 nappy liners, which would not last one week, as I know to my cost—£1·10; four pairs of plastic pants—£3; 100g of cotton wool—78p; baby lotion—89p; a bucket to put nappies in, with a lid to keep the stink down—£5·99; sterilising powder—£1·49; a basic cot—£63; three sheets—£11; a duvet—£9·99; a baby bath—£6·99; one bar of soap—53p; a towel—though more than one is needed—£6·99; a pram—£173·50, including a rain hood; six bottles and teats and sterilising equipment—£14; a brush to clean out the bottles—£1·15; four stretch suits—£14; two woolen cardies—£7; four vests—£4·50; a shawl or a blanket for when the baby is taken out—£10·99; a woollen hat—£1·75; two socks—£1·85; two mittens—£1·05; nail scissors—89p; a hair brush—£2·99; a plastic changing mat—£3·99; a changing bag—£9·99. In my rush I have not been able to find the price for a cat net or for pram straps, a sun hat or other essential items in the Health Education Council list. I do not even mention toys, although in terms of stimulation from colour and sound the first few months of a baby's life are the most important in developing its potential. That list adds up to £376·46, yet we are talking about only £80 being given to meet the needs of working-class women.
I should like to spend more time making the essential points, but I am interested to know how the Minister will respond. From that Health Education Council list, from my personal experience over the past 15 months and from constituency cases as recently as last Saturday morning, I have no doubt that millions of families look forward to the implementation of the conference policy decided by the Labour party in October. I could take the Committee and the Minister through the statistics, but for now I simply stress that we need to pass the amendment so that the real costs of bringing a baby into the world can be identified and taken up by a Labour Secretary of State.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) takes her place in a Labour Cabinet in the next few months she will make it a priority to redress the problems caused by this legislation. We know that she will have a fight on her hands to ensure that a Ministry for women's rights has the necessary finance to carry out improvements in the lives—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) thinks that the list of essential items that I have read out is a laughing matter, perhaps he would like to come to Coventry and join me in visiting the damp houses in my constituency where babies who do not have good, clean clothes soon start suffering from bronchitis and other bronchial problems.

Mr. Eric Forth: The reason for my mirth was not the content of the list that the hon. Gentleman read out, but the concept of a Ministry for women's rights, which is so ludicrous as to be laughable.

Mr. Nellist: I will leave it to those who are present for the debate or will hear it on the radio or read about it in Hansard or in the press to judge which is the more laughable—the idea that a baby can be brought into the world and helped through the first weeks of its life on £80,

when the realistic cost, according to estimates from the Health Education Council, the Health Visitors Association and magazines such as "Parents", ranges from £400 to £750, or the idea that a majority Labour Government will give my hon. Friend the Member for Barking the job of changing that position and ensuring that millions of working-class families can give their children a proper start.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking shares my view of the importance of that task and understands that there will be a battle against the vested interests, represented so well by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who will say that the money cannot be afforded. If that is the answer of the City, the employers, the industrialists and the Tory party, the extension of a Labour Government's control over the means of finance and over industry to provide the necessary money for an expansion of public services will become increasingly urgent.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I support the amendment and I agree with much of the analysis, though not all the premises, of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).
I do not cast aspersions on the strength of feeling at the Labour party conference, but having left that party on the principle of one man, one vote, I always recall the sketch in, I think, "Not the Nine O'clock News" where a meeting had to decide whether to have tea or coffee. Five hands, representing 1·5 million votes, were raised for tea and one hand, representing 7 million votes, was raised for coffee. So coffee it was, and on the meeting democratically went.
I support the amendment because it is a good and sensible proposal. Some of the proposed amendments seem longer than the Bill. The alliance proposed an amendment about the rights of mothers under 16. That is germane to the Labour amendment and I hope that the Minister will respond to our suggestion, because it was not adequately dealt with on Second Reading.
I also underline what the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East said about the dramatic decline in the real value of the maternity grant. The Government's proposal of an £80 grant marks a slippage. In 1983, the average single payment made by the DHSS was £60, which, with the £25 maternity grant, gave a total of £85. Therefore, the Government's latest proposal is lower in cash terms and in real terms than what was made available to mothers on supplementary benefit in 1983.
The Government have not attempted to justify the suggested level. I hope that the Minister will explain why such a disgracefully low level has been set. How can the Government justify such a dramatic slippage in both cash and real terms?
The Under-Secretary said, here or elsewhere, that he would reconsider the position of pregnant girls under the age of 16 whose parents are not in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. There was no time at the end of the Second Reading debate to comment on that in detail, so I hope that he will comment tonight. I support the amendment because at least it would allow the House to conduct annually a debate about adequate maternity support.
From the detailed list supplied by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, from the comments by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and from the speech by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), it is


clear that the proposed level bears no relation to the reality of the cost which women and families face when bringing up children. Does the Minister really believe, with his hand on his heart, that the level proposed is sufficient?

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I support the amendment. It is right to emphasise the need to meet the cost of prescribed items. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) mentioned £170. There is no doubt that £80 is inadequate.
A few months ago I approached my local DHSS on behalf of two young girls who were seeking assistance with maternity payment. Both girls live in appalling poverty and received about £195. That is not a princely sum, given the appalling circumstances in which they live in Port Glasgow. Was that sum over-generous? In future it seems that girls in similar circumstances will be penalised. What will girls in the same circumstances receive in future? What will happen in constituencies such as mine where 43 per cent. or 44 per cent. of the population is in receipt of social welfare benefits? I presume that youngsters living in such poverty will have the right after six months to apply for a loan from the social fund. Will women in such circumstances be able to apply for a loan to buy the essentials for a baby's first few weeks of life?
I have often said that the legislation is squalid, especially for many of my constituents. The sum of £80 is disgracefully inadequate. If the Government had any honour or principles they would support the amendment. I look forward to the day when such matters, as they apply to Scotland. are decided in a Scottish Parliament.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) moved the amendment in her usual beguiling fashion, but she hid the fact that the underlying effect, if not the intent, of the amendment is to reinvent the single payment system with all its complexities. From time to time, the hon. Lady pays lip service to simplicity, but she tends to take a hatchet when her heart becomes involved.
The hon. Members for Derby, South, for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised several issues with which I should like to deal before coming to the underlying argument involved in the proposed amendment. The hon. Member for Derby, South asked why housing benefit was used as a passport for funeral payments and not for maternity grant. She thought that the intention was to restrict the entitlement to maternity grant. Whether one decides that that is the intention depends upon the end of the telescope through which one looks, or upon whether one concludes that the Government want to widen the entitlement to help with funeral expenses for many of the reasons which hon. Members have put forward on a number of occasions.
I want to widen the entitlement to funeral payments for a series of self-evident reasons. With the cost of meeting funeral expenses comes an immediate large-scale cost at a time of distress, to which hon. Members have repeatedly drawn our attention in recent months. I want, therefore, to allow the widest possible entitlement to the funeral payment. I make no apology for that being my intention, although it is not possible to extend the passporting provision of housing benefit to maternity grant.
Family income supplement itself makes a fairly satisfactory passport to maternity payment for low

income families. That is clearly not so for funeral payments since people on low incomes who tend to take responsibility for funeral payments do not usually have dependent children.
The hon. Member for Derby, South also queried whether £80 was the correct level. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East spoke with some feeling. from his own recent experience of paternity, about the expenses involved in having a baby. I, too, have a family—a little beyond baby age—so I recall only too clearly the expense involved.

Mr. Frank Field: I cannot remember the eligibility rules for FIS for those who are expecting their first child. The Minister told the House that FIS was a more convenient passport, but he failed to tell us for whom it was more convenient. Will he tell us at what point people would be eligible for FIS when expecting their first child? If they are eligible only after the birth of the child, they may be ineligible for FIS.

Mr. Major: We considered that matter, the hon. Gentleman may recall, in respect of family credit. It is in the depths of the Social Security Act, but it will take me a moment or two to recall what precise conclusion we reached. I hope that I shall recall that conclusion before I complete my remarks.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East also touched upon the particular expenses of having a baby. I make nothing other than an acknowledgment that having a baby means a significant degree of expense for the young couple involved. The hon. Gentleman, in what I thought was a compelling phrase with which I agree, made the point that parenthood brings with it both joys and responsibilities. One of the responsibilities—I certainly do not seek to present this in a hard-faced manner—is for the parents to make a contribution towards the welfare of their child. All we seek to do with the maternity grant—the hon. Member for Derby, South used slightly different words—is to make a reasonable contribution towards the expense of having a baby.
I should perhaps underline the word "contribution" as we do not see and never have seen the purpose of this payment as being to cover the entire expense of having a baby for precisely the underlying reason that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East gave in his speech.

Mr. Nellist: While the Minister is dealing with this matter, may I ask how he arrived at the figure of £80? In the Mothercare catalogue, a basic layette, which consists of two of each item for the first few days or weeks of a baby's life, comes to £39·99. If, as is most likely with the sort of families we are talking about, the family did not have a washing machine and a tumble drier to air clothes properly—if people are living in a damp house they will need at least four or many of those items, such as vests and so on—those basic things will cost £80 before they start. I understand that the original grant in the 1960s covered the cost of a pram. Therefore, how did the DHSS work out this sum of £80?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman assumes that some weird and odd mathematical equation has been used to arrive at the £80 figure. There is no such calculation. Within the social security budget there are always competing demands for what is not an unlimited amount


of resources. Within those competing demands Ministers must decide where to direct the resources that are available. In making that decision we thought that£80 would represent a reasonable contribution towards the cost of having a baby when set against the present flat rate £25 maternity grant.

Mr. Nellist: Further to that, will the Minister confirm that the Department, in effect, said, "Here is the amount of money. Here are the number of women that it will cover. Divide the money by the number of women, and it comes to £80."? In other words, it bears absolutely no relation to the real cost of bringing up a baby.

Mr. Major: That was a good try by the hon. Gentleman, but that was not what I said and that is not the position. I shall repeat precisely what I said just a moment ago. There are competing demands, and that is so for whoever is the Minister. Within those competing demands there is a whole range of areas—the hon. Gentleman frequently draws other examples to my attention—where it is desirable to ensure that the benefits are uprated, perhaps increased, or whatever it may be. Social Security Ministers must make a judgment between those competing demands. Possibly other hon. Members would draw the line at a different level and make a different judgment, but that is the decision that any Minister must make. Upon that basis, we judged that £80 was right.

Mrs. Beckett: I was wondering whether the Minister would tell us whether the judgment that he made was influenced in any way by looking at the list of costs published by his Department last summer.

Mr. Major: Of course it was. I have just explained precisely how the judgment was reached. The hon. Lady may try as much as she wishes to put words in my mouth, but I am disinclined to leave them there and accept them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye was first in the queue. For the purposes of convenience, I am also prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow should he wish to intervene.

Mr. Kennedy: We are talking about something that the Government, for their own purposes in this Bill, define as a sufficient level. How can £80 be sufficient when the £25 maternity allowance in 1983 was on average chalked up by a single payment of £60, bringing the total sum in Government support at that point to £85? How, in real as well as in cash terms, can £80 be justified three years later?

Mr. Major: It was not on average. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that. It was on average for those who received single payments, but I remind him of something of which he may not be aware. It is by no means the case that all young ladies in those circumstances received single payments. About 20 per cent. of new mothers may have done, but certainly not much more than 25 per cent. received the top level. It is certainly not an average figure in the sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has just told the House that the Department had to do that complicated sum and how much it should budget for that part of social security

expenditure. Will he tell us what the estimate was for the first year of the new scheme's operation? When he has given us that figure, will he compare it with what would have been paid out if the £25 for each qualifying mother had still been in existence?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman can be provided with those figures. I shall have them for the clause stand part debate or my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security will.
We have made no secret of the fact that the abolition of the flat rate grant which was spread so widely will certainly have led to a saving. I do not have the precise figures, but I shall endeavour to obtain them in time for that debate.
The hon. Member for Derby, South also referred to a minor, although perhaps, important matter on funeral payments. She referred to the meanness of the proposition that one return journey to arrange or attend a funeral was adequate. That is a matter for regulations. The hon. Lady may well be right in what she says. We shall certainly consider whether it is one of the matters that we can change.
I have dealt with some of the underlying points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. I thought I recognised that compelling phrase that he used, "the dustbin of history." However, as my Parliamentary Private Secretary has been unable to find what I thought it referred to, I shall skip lightly over that point in the interests of avoiding controversy. The hon. Gentleman may have borne in mind in his remarks the fact that what is proposed after April 1988 in terms of free welfare foods is that income support families will continue to receive free milk tokens for children under 16 and that families on family credit, although they will not receive milk tokens on account of pregnancy, will receive cash compensation to be included in the child credit instead of milk tokens. That will apply only to a child born before the claim was made.
The Government's intention and the general aim is to provide help in cash rather than in kind. That is the underlying proposition of the new family credit which is wider and more generous than the present FIS scheme.
As regards the low income scheme to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East referred, I make no particularly derogatory remarks about that scheme. However, I simply observe that it has the rather derisory take-up of only about 7 per cent. at present. It is not as valuable as the hon. Gentleman appears to think.
It is true that vitamin tokens are to be abolished as a benefit, but the hon. Gentleman may not yet be aware that they will instead be available free from health clinics from a date still to be decided. He may not have been aware of that point.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East also referred to France and one or two other countries in Europe and to precisely what was provided there. There are five countries within the European Community that do not pay a universal maternity grant. The proposition that perhaps underlay the hon. Gentleman's remarks, that Britain was being uniquely ungenerous, although I put the matter more mildly than the hon. Gentleman, is perhaps not the case.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, with a notable disregard for precisely what the amendment is about, referred to maternity payments for mothers under


16. It is perfectly true, as he knows, that my hon. and learned Friend and I some time ago in a conversation with the One Parent Family Group agreed to consider that matter.
When we examined the matter in 1986, during the passage of the Social Security Bill as it then was, we were entirely unconvinced by the arguments for extending the provision to mothers under 16 years of age. I am not unsympathetic to the various arguments that have been advanced and I understand the concern that hon. Members feel. I am familiar with the forceful arguments that have been advanced on behalf of one-parent families, for example. There is, however, a genuine dilemma which is moral as well as administrative. Were we to extend the principle to those under 16 years of age, we would overturn a long-standing principle of supplementary benefit which we believe to be correct—the principle that a child under the age of 16, even if she has given birth to a child, remains the dependant of her parents or guardian. I understand the arguments for and against that principle and I can clearly see both sides of the coin, but I am not inclined to think that we shall be able to make the change that is advocated. In no sense am I ruling it out categorically, but it is not a matter for primary legislation. It is something that would be dealt with by regulation rather than by an Act of Parliament.
I do not wish to raise hopes that we shall be able to make the change that is being urged upon us, but I am prepared to say that I shall consider further any fresh arguments that may arise. I say that without any wish to give the Committee the impression that I shall be persuaded easily that the argument that is being urged upon me is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has made a helpful statement and I appreciate that he is being indulgent in responding in such a way. He has spoken about the legal position—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have been indulgent, too, and that he should not push his luck.

Mr. Kennedy: I recognise your indulgence with gratitude, Mr. Walker.
I understand that under family law in England all mothers have full legal responsibility for the care and provision of their children. Under section 17 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, a mother of any age is liable to maintain her child. I appreciate the Minister's concern for the principle that someone under the age of 16 is still in the ward, as it were, of her parents, but under existing social security legislation certain conditions are placed upon mothers.

Mr. Major: Having said that he would not push his luck, I rather fancy that the hon. Gentleman did. If your tolerance can be stretched slightly further, Mr. Walker, let me say that section 17 is ever present in my brain, as indeed is the ruling in Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Committee. However, I am not in the business of being pushed any further upon that proposition. I have sought to dampen down expectation that I shall be able to help, and that I would reiterate, but I am prepared to consider any fresh argument that may be advanced either in the Chamber this evening or subsequently.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement that he will think again. The issues that are now

before us have been discussed on a number of occasions since I have been a Member of the House of Commons. Perhaps we might have a more wide-ranging debate on a future occasion. As I understand it, it is unlawful for someone to have sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years. That factor, too, should be borne in mind in our discussions. Given that there are 1,400 pregnancies each year as a result of under-age sexual intercourse, we should as well as—

The Chairman: Order. We are getting a long way from the amendment and the Bill. I hope that my tolerance will not be stretched too much.

Mr. Field: Perhaps I might be allowed to complete my sentence, as it were, Mr. Walker. When we think about meeting the needs of young mothers under the age of 16 years, we should think at the same time about the other issues that the Minister has raised that come within the term "family responsibilities". These issues apply throughout the social scale.

The Chairman: I hope that the Minister will bear these matters in mind for the moment when we debate them.

Mr. Major: Indeed I shall, Mr. Walker. I shall bear in mind also that you would prefer me to hear them in mind silently this evening.

Dr. Godman: May I relate what the Minister has said to the last sentence in the amendment, which reads:
to meet the cost of prescribed items.
There is an important point of principle. If a young girl chooses not to terminate a pregnancy, it is essential, surely, that she and her family, especially if they are living in poverty, be given all the assistance that they need.

Mr. Major: I do not dissent from that proposition. The hon. Gentleman has said that if the young girl and her family are living in poverty, they should be given the assistance that they need. In the circumstances that he envisages, the maternity grant will be paid. The issue is to whom it is paid—to the child mother's parents or the child mother herself. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, there is no question of the payment not being made. The proposition upon which the Government rest currently is that, for many of the reasons that underlie what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has in mind, payment should be made to the child mother's parents rather than to the under-aged mother herself. That is the substantive point. When there is great poverty, I think that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and I are at one.
Our aims in abolishing the £25 universal maternity grant and the system of supplementary benefit single payment for maternity leave are twofold. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead should contain himself. I think that I have shown that, if he wishes to intervene, I shall be prepared to allow him to do so. There is no need for him to chunter to me from a seated position.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has done well enough without any further encouragement.

Mr. Major: I am always prepared to accept wise advice, Mr. Walker, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman is as well. If both of us do so, we shall make some progress.
Our intention, first, is to provide a fairer system which makes a realistic contribution towards the costs of a new


baby. I reiterate that we wish to have a fairer system that contributes realistically towards the costs of a new baby for all low-income groups, whether in work or not. It has not yet been said by anyone who has contributed to the debate that the proposition before the Committee will not extend help to many low-income groups in work. It should be made clear also that they would not receive help under the present system. That should be borne in mind by those who are concerned primarily with the level of income rather than the status—employed or unemployed—of the person receiving the income.
Our second aim is to simplify the existing system so that everyone is a good deal clearer about what he or she will receive than at present. I fear that the amendment would destroy both of the propositions that I have put before the Committee. I am not in a position to commend it to the Committee and I shall not do so.
To accept the amendment—

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I do so to remind him of my question about the right to apply for a loan to meet the requisites that we are discussing. I thought that he would reply to that question.

Mr. Major: I think, Mr. Armstrong, that the hon. Gentleman's question goes a good deal wider than the proposition that is before us. I believe that I would be in even more trouble with you, Mr. Armstrong, than with your predecessor in the Chair if I were to deal with the issue now.
To accept the amendment would mean returning to a system under which it would be necessary to prescribe, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East said, the number of plastic pants, feeding bottles, nappies and other accoutrement that a mother is likely to need on the arrival of a new baby, whether it be the first child or not. Most hon. Members, but clearly not all—I make no critical point about this—are agreed that such a rigid system would not be an especially satisfactory way of dealing with needs that we all wish to see met. The amendment seems to support a rigid system for the future. The hon. Member for Derby, South is clearly an unrestructured supporter of a complex system.
We believe that our aims are best met by a flat rate payment, which has clear, qualifying rules to target it at those who are most in need. We think that is what we have. We also feel that it is in the best interests of the claimant to leave her with complete freedom as to what she buys with the money. Our proposals represent a significant improvement over the present arrangements. I hope that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will be disinclined to press the amendment to a Division, but if she does, I must advise my hon. Friends to resist it.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I hope that I can stretch your tolerance, Mr. Armstrong, or rather the tolerance of Mr. Walker, who has just vacated the Chair, in referring to the under-16s. I intended to refer to them on Third Reading, and perhaps I will. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). The Minister says that, without any commitment, he might reconsider the whole matter of the under-16s if he can be presented with fresh arguments. I do not know what fresh arguments we can present to him.

It seems to me that all the arguments that have been presented so far are good and valid. The plain fact is that the Minister seems to underestimate the number of young women under 16, who, for one reason or another—it is not for us to inquire necessarily into their family circumstances—would be better off, and whose child would be better off, if the money were paid directly to them, not via the parent, who may or may not pass the money over. We cannot always inquire into the delicacy of family circumstances.
I do not know why the Minister is so resistant to our argument. I do not know whether he thinks that, because one is under 16, one will simply go out and spend the money on a video tape. I have met young women of that age who, unfortunately in some cases, have become pregnant. They have taken the matter extremely seriously and have been frightened, and a little bit of money in their hand to cope with their difficult situation is badly needed.
The Minister said that it would be so much better to have a flat rate of £80 and not continue with the present complex system. He called my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) an unreconstructed supporter of the present system, which she certainly is not. I know that she would agree that the system needs streamlining, but not in the way in which the Government have done it, which is simply to wipe out many of the benefits that women will have until the ruling is introduced.
Much mention was made last week of the £60 average that women got from various other benefits which, with the £25, brought the payment up to £85. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South reminded me a few moments ago that last year, when we debated the Social Security Bill, now an Act, the Maternity Alliance said that the average amount that was paid out in other benefits was not £60 but £143. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to that point in a speech that he made in Committee about the additional benefits.

Dr. Godman: I am sure that the Minister and his officials will correct me if I am wrong on the matter, but I am fairly certain that in 1985 and perhaps 1986 the average payment to claimants in those circumstances was well over £143. It was closer to £200.

Ms. Richardson: Perhaps I was being conservative. I am sure that in many instances the payment was nearer to £200. That just shows the situation that women face.
At the end of a speech that I made on Thursday, I referred to what Finland provided for pregnant women, in the form of a basket of goods full of maternity and children's wear. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State£indeed, the Minister of State has just repeated it£said that most people would wish to choose and buy their own baby clothes. That is true, but even with the present bases upon which we give pregnant women money, most of us realise that many women do not have enough money to buy the clothes now.
There are an awful lot of hand-me-downs. Clothes are passed on not just in the family but from one woman to another. Many of the clothes are well worn. It is not a matter of handing on new things. That is happening because the woman who is newly pregnant cannot afford the clothes. The same applies to maternity clothes. Women pass on to one another two or three maternity outfits. That


is not because they want to do it; it is because they cannot afford to buy new clothes for themselves, even with the present payments. The £80 that they will get will not enable them to buy new clothes, so the old system will continue, almost like a jumble sale.
It is clear to me that both the Ministers and the Government do not live in the real world, yet, as many hon. Members have said, in some senses the Department lives in the real world—because it produced the list of maternity items and their cost. The cost for a vest, a sleeping suit, a cardigan, a pram suit, a wrap or a shawl, plastic pants, 24 napkins—they will not go very far—feeding bottle and teat. a cot, a cot mattress, a pram or carry-cot, cot sheet, cot blanket and baby bath amounts to £187·45, on the Department's estimates. So how does the Minister think that £80 will go anywhere near that?
The figure that catches my eye most is 24 nappies. That is what the Department recommends as a sufficient quantity. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), whose experience is perhaps the most recent in the House, will realise that 24 nappies go nowhere. As he said, if one lives in a damp council house or council flat and one does not have a tumble drier, one will need an awful lot more than that. I believe that it would he much better for parents to be encouraged to use disposable nappies.

Mr. Nellist: I want to make the point that 24 nappies in the first few weeks of a baby's life, at six a day, would last only four days. I must stress the point that if someone does not have a washing machine or tumble drier, more nappies will be required because of the frequency of the need to wash them. I agree also that disposables are more convenient. However, over the two or three years that a baby needs nappies, when it comes to choosing between either terrys or disposable nappies, disposables are a damn sight more expensive.

9 pm

Ms. Richardson: We have all been grateful to hear about the recent personal experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East. I know that other hon. Members have—I was going to say "had babies", perhaps that is not entirely correct—had experience of babies, but perhaps my hon. Friend's more recent experience is more useful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East also referred to European comparisons. The Minister's rejoinder simply contained details of other European comparisons, which were worse. Do we want to aim for the worst rather than the best? Surely the United Kingdom wants the best practices and not the worst. The Minister's rejoinder was unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) flitted in and flitted out and made one crack in passing. He was an opponent of mine during his first election campaign in 1974. I was quite sorry to see that he came to the House eventually. In his comments today he tried to rubbish the idea of a Ministry for Women to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East referred. When Labour is in power, we shall have a Ministry for Women—[Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would remember that their female constituents will read the report of this debate and will understand that, for the first time, a Labour Government will have a Ministry that will do its best to pull together

the disadvantages and deprivation suffered by women in social security, in employment and other matters. The Ministry will monitor and ensure that benefits place women on a proper, equal footing and give them the level of support to which we believe that women, as more than half the population, are entitled. It ill-becomes Conservative Members continually to rubbish women.
We have had an interesting debate and I propose to end now—

Mr. Francis Maude: Hear, hear.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear" no doubt because we are talking about women.
I propose to finish now by inviting my hon. Friends to vote for amendment No. 3 because we want to show the Government that we do not believe that they have treated pregnant women and women with babies in a decent fashion, but have treated them meanly.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 110, Noes 160.

Division No. 84]
[9.02 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Hardy, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoyle, Douglas


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
John, Brynmor


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Kennedy, Charles


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Leighton, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Litherland, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Livsey, Richard


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Thomas
Loyden, Edward


Clelland, David Gordon
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
McNamara, Kevin


Coleman, Donald
McWilliam, John


Conlan, Bernard
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Mikardo, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dalyell, Tam
Nellist, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Brien, William


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Park, George


Douglas, Dick
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Pavitt, Laurie


Eadie, Alex
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Raynsford, Nick


Fatchett, Derek
Redmond, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fisher, Mark
Rogers, Allan


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Forrester, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Foster, Derek
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman
Snape, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hancock, Michael
Tinn, James






Wainwright, R.
Winnick, David


Wallace, James



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert
Mr. Don Dixon and


Welsh, Michael
Mr. Ray Powell.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hayes, J.


Amess, David
Hayward, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Heddle, John


Ashby, David
Hickmet, Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Hicks, Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hind, Kenneth


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hirst, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Baldry, Tony
Holt, Richard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howard, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Blackburn, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Key, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bright, Graham
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brinton, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Browne, John
Knowles, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Knox, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lawler, Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
Lee, John (Pendle)


Bulmer, Esmond
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butterfill, John
Lester, Jim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Cash, William
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Lord, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric
Macfarlane, Neil


Cope, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Couchman, James
Maclean, David John


Crouch, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Madel, David


Dunn, Robert
Major, John


Durant, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Evennett, David
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mather, Sir Carol


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Farr, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Favell, Anthony
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Murphy, Christopher


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony


Forth, Eric
Newton, Tony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Normanton, Tom


Fox, Sir Marcus
Norris, Steven


Franks, Cecil
Ottaway, Richard


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Galley, Roy
Pawsey, James


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Pollock, Alexander


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Porter, Barry


Ground, Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Powley, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Price, Sir David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hannam, John
Rattan, Keith


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Harris, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Harvey, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Haselhurst, Alan
Rowe, Andrew


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Ryder, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy





Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thurnham, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Mr. Michael Portillo.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT

`In section 83(3) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
(cc) regulations prescribing amounts under section 32(2)(a) above;"'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a minor and relatively technical matter, but it is one which the Government might do well to consider. The intention is to ensure that regulations made in this context come before the House on the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. This is the only way in which to ensure that the regulations are debated other than by relying on the Government's good will and their acceptance of a debate on a prayer.
The Minister will no doubt stress that the Government have every intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations are debated as we propose and therefore the new clause is unnecessary. We assume, being charitable souls, that even this Government, having, for example, halved the money going to the poorest mothers, do not intend that halved sum to stand in perpetuity. We assume that the Government intend to uprate the sum from time to time and, indeed, to table an amendment to assist them in that procedure. If the Government have that intention, it seems that the regulations that ensue should be treated as other uprating regulations and be debated under the affirmative procedure. If the Government have no such intention, the Minister can tell us now and we and the other place will know where we stand.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): The reason for making regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure is to provide adequate opportunity for Parliament to debate the issues. In this instance, however, the matters concerned have already been debated twice, once during the passage of last year's measure, and again on this Bill. It is a little difficult to imagine that the House will wish to go over the matter again in some weeks, rather than in months, as it is unlikely that new facts would arise from such a debate.
It is proper to point out that the mere fact that an amount of benefit is subject to an affirmative instrument is no guarantee either that the sums will change or that the matter will be debated. Obviously, it is always open to the Opposition to table a prayer and seek to have it debated. Bearing in mind the recent debates, it does not seem that


there is a strong case for this amendment, nor for an affirmative resolution of the House, should uprating arise in future.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not accept the Minister's argument. Should uprating be considered, it would be correct for the matter to be debated under an affirmative resolution. As happens from time to time in our proceedings, it may well he that the Minister did not previously recognise that this was the purpose of the debate. In order to give him time to consider further this reasonable proposition, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Mr. Major: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This one-page Bill has already generated a few pages of Hansard over a rather short period and I do not think that I need add very much to that weight of paper now, not least because I suspect that Opposition Members who are scribbling on their pads wish to take up some of the time available over the next few minutes.
On Second Reading, I explained in considerable detail the background and objectives of the Bill. We have discussed several related and, thanks to the interventions of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), unrelated subjects in today's debate. It may be appropriate if I recap briefly on why the Bill is needed.
The present system of help with maternity and funeral costs is widely acknowledged to be in urgent need of reform. That, at least, is common cause across the Floor.

Mr. Frank Field: Increase, not reform.

Mr. Major: Not just increase; reform, too. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The system fails to give effective help to many people on low incomes who need assistance, while it provides a large number of small grants to people who do not need them. That is undoubtedly true. Even the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) with his well-known generosity with taxpayers' money will appreciate precisely that proposition. Therefore, we have proposed a much more realistic system, concentrating the available help on people on low incomes, whether in or out of work. I look for some acknowledgment from the Opposition Benches of the fact that there will be help for people in work as well as for those out of work, which did not previously apply. Even the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that that is not a cut but a positive improvement in the available help.
Our proposals were outlined in both the Green Paper and the White Paper on social security reform in 1985, and were debated at length during the passage of the Social Security Act 1986, not least by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is chuntering happily on the Back Benches.

Dr. Godman: Unhappily.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is unhappy. I am deeply concerned about that, although I must confess that it is not one of my life's ambitions to keep him happy, and no doubt he will say that 1 have not failed.
Parliament approved the essence of these proposals not long ago, and we are here this evening, as the House knows, only because it has emerged that a few vital words necessary to implement the policy that Parliament

approved were inadvertently omitted from the 1986 Act. We thought that we had the powers necessary to carry out the policy that Parliament had approved. Subsequent events and advice from our wise friends the lawyers told us that that was not the case. It would clearly be wrong to overturn so soon what Parliament had approved because there were defects in the legislation. We have no intention of doing that or of jettisoning or delaying these much-needed reforms because of such a technical defect. The Bill is designed simply to correct that defect so that the report can proceed as planned.
When the Social Security Act was introduced, it provided, among other things, for a social fund to be set up. It provided for payments out of that fund to meet
maternity expenses; funeral expenses; and other needs".
We singled out maternity and funerals for special mention for two reasons. First, we always intended these payments to be rather different in nature from other social fund payments. Decisions on many social fund payments will be based on a flexible approach to individuals in varying circumstances, something that the current supplementary benefit system signally fails to provide.
Decisions on maternity and funeral payments will be based on clear-cut criteria. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead is interrupting regularly. We look forward to his intervention from the vertical rather than the seated position. If people meet the criteria that we are setting out, they will get the payment. [Interruption.] The House may get a speech from the hon. Gentleman, but it will not come if he keeps on interrupting me so that I take up too much of the available time.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister is goading my hon. Friend.

Mr. Major: Nothing is further from my mind, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.
When we first began to consider this matter, it was decided to refer separately in the Bill to maternity and funeral payments. Secondly, this formulation made it easier to introduce the social fund in two stages, with maternity and funeral payments starting in April. 1987. This has the advantage of providing us with a year's experience of operating the social fund before it takes on its new and novel responsibilities, in April 1988.
Those were the proposals that we put before the House last year, and we spent many happy hours, upstairs and downstairs, debating this. The House will be relieved to know that I have no plans to go over all that ground again. On Report, we strengthened the provision for reviews of disputed decisions with the introduction of social fund inspectors. We gave this unexpected novelty, responding to the concern that had been expressed. The Bill was amended in the other place at the end of June to provide that all social fund decisions should be based on regulations and should carry the same appeal rights as other social security benefits.
As the House knows, we did not feel able to accept those amendments in total, because they would have replaced what is clearly a better and more flexible system with one that, for most social fund payments, would be rigid and inappropriate. However, we made some changes in July in response to the concerns that had been expressed. We further strengthened the provision for reviewing cases with the appointment of a social fund commissioner, and we recognised the special nature of maternity and funeral payments in the social fund by


making them, unlike other social fund payments, based on regulations decided by adjudication officers and subject to the normal appeals procedure.

Dr. Godman: The Minister may or may not remember that I have asked several questions about the social fund commissioner. For example, I asked from where he or she was to be recruited. Is this to be an internal appointment within the Department, or is the person to be brought into the Department from elsewhere?

Mr. Major: I have just explained that the matter that we are discussing this evening is based upon regulations that are to be decided by adjudication officers and that it will be subject to the normal appeals procedure. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's question goes a little wider than the subject that we are debating this evening, and I must leave my response to it to a more suitable time.
The changes that we have in mind were approved by Parliament, with the result that the Social Security Act 1986 now provides that payments may be made out of the social fund
to meet, in prescribed circumstances, maternity expenses and funeral expenses; and to meet other needs in accordance with directions given or guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
In this context, the term "prescribed" means
specified in or determined in accordance with regulations.
The next step— I can reassure the House that this history lesson on the background to this Bill is coming to an end— was for those regulations to be laid. We did that on 16 December. They aimed to give effect to the policy, well known to this House, that was made clear during the proceedings on the 1986 Bill—that is, that effective help would be directed to people on low incomes, with a flat rate sum for maternity and payments for the full, reasonable cost of funerals.
That is the substantive concern that has guided the propositions that we have put before the House from the time of the Green Paper onwards. The Bill seeks to ensure that those propositions may be carried into effect. It is designed to correct the defect that arose in the redrafting of the Bill last July and that was spotted at the time that the regulations were submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Bill corrects that defect and ensures that the reforms can proceed in the way that we planned. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Beckett: The Opposition remain concerned about the inadequacy of the provision that will be made under the Bill. The Minister's argument went nowhere near convincing us that we were mistaken. He said again this evening that the maternity grant would be realistic and referred to it as concentrating the available help on low-income families both in and out of work. He failed to notice— although I acknowledged this in my opening remarks on our first amendment— that help will be made available through the social fund to a wider group of people, but I pointed out then— and I remain convinced now—that to make help available to a wider group when one is halving the amount of help that is made available to anybody who manages to make a claim is not exactly generous. It means that, although a wider group among the poorest may be able to claim, they will receive far less. I fail entirely to understand why the Minister imagines that that will be welcomed by the Opposition.
We have always questioned why these payments should be made under the social fund. That thought came to my mind when I heard the Minister explain how the treatment of these payments under the social fund will differ from the treatment of other claims and payments under the social fund. The Minister referred to the fact that there are separate arrangements for appeal and for adjudication. When he replies, I hope that he will clarify that point.
The Minister also referred to the fact that there will be special rights of appeal, but I understand that, under the regulations as they were originally drafted and laid, the right of appeal is to exist only in relation to the specified circumstances under which such a payment is to be made—in other words, to whether someone is entitled to a payment, not to whether the payment is adequate. That seems to be only half an appeal.
I wonder whether it was fully realised in the other place when the Minister's noble Friend made the concession that the amount of the payment could not be queried, but only whether any payment should be made. It is a rather curious matter, because we well remember that in the earlier debates on these issues it appeared that the Government's main position was that a truly independent appeal could not be allowed for most of the items claimed under the social fund. That was because a truly independent appeal would have to look at each claim on its merits and would be bound to bust the Government's cash limits. The Government keep telling us that this part of the fund is not cash limited. If that is the case, why is it not possible for the appeal system for this part of the fund to stand on all fours with the present appeal system?
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about the social fund commissioner. I cannot call to mind any information about where that commissioner may be appointed from, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, from answers that I have received, it appears that the social fund inspectors that he will appoint will be drawn from names given to him by the Secretary of State, and that the inspectors will be subject to directions by the Secretary of State, though only to the advice of the commissioner. If the Minister thinks that that is an independent system of appeal, his view of what is independent is typical of this Government's view, and it is not a view that would be shared by people outside.
We are worried about the lack of understanding, even in this House, of how this part of the social fund will work. I notice that on Second Reading two questions were raised about this matter.

Dr. Godman: These inspectors may have a modicum of independence, but surely they will be part of the career structure of the Department. We are not likely to encounter, or are we, non-conformists? In order to maintain their access to the career structure, they will conform.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. I understand that it is intended that the officers will be nominated by the Secretary of State and will be subject to his orders. I cannot understand how anybody could think that that is an independent system of appeal.
As I say, two questions were asked on Second Reading about how this part of the social fund will work. I shall clarify the answers given and press the Minister on the information that he gave. One hon. Member asked the Minister if a grant for funeral expenses would be given to


someone who might be entitled under income criteria to one of the qualifying benefits—income support, housing benefit or family credit— but who was not claiming income support at the time. The Minister said—I do not think that 1 paraphrase him too much—that it would be in keeping with the spirit of the Government's proposals if such a person were entitled to reimbursement for funeral expenses. It might be in keeping with the spirit of the proposals, but it is not in keeping with the letter of the regulations. They quite specifically say
in respect of the period
a person has to be
in receipt of supplementary benefit, family income supplement or housing benefit".
I should be grateful to the Minister if he could clarify this point, because his hon. Friend who asked the question might have been misled into thinking that the Government are being more generous than they are.
Another hon. Member asked about a widow who borrowed money from her son to meet a funeral payment and the Minister told him that such a person would not now need to do that. The Minister's reply was quite fascinating. Is he saying that the rules which apply now about single payments— namely, that if one has borrowed money and met an expense the need for reimbursement no longer exists— will not apply under the social fund? 1 think that this is the first time that such a suggestion has been made. I should be pleased to hear the Minister tell us that that will be the position, and 1 should welcome clarification from the Minister or from his hon. Friend. If the Minister is not saying that someone who borrowed money would be entitled to reimbursement, he seems to be saying that people will be more aware of their rights under the social fund than they were under the single payment scheme—even though they will not have more rights than they had before.
The. hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs Bottomley), who I am sorry to say is not in her place, said that it was perfectly all right to abolish the maternity grant and single payments in their present form. She said that it did not matter that single payments were being abolished because they were not at present claimed on anything like a sufficient basis. I accept the argument that single payments are insufficiently claimed, but it is not clear what magical transformation is expected to take place which will mean that people are much better informed and find it much simpler to make claims under the social fund than under the present system of single payments. This is apart, of course, from the detailed list of entitlements which go with single payments but which could easily be simplified if the Government were prepared to be rather more generous in their payments. A deliberate decision by the Government keeps these matters complicated. It is not necessary for them to be so complicated simply because they are set out in regulations.
I am especially sorry that the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West is not here. I should have warned her that if social fund claims turn out to be easier to make and people find it easier to claim and receive money than under the single payments system, the Government will take steps to abolish them at the earliest possible date. One reason given to us for the abolition of single payments is that too many people claim them and they are drawing too much money. The hon. Lady is probably mistaken in her basic point.
The whole concept of a social fund with a limited budget is deeply alarming. Not only the Opposition but

almost all groups which are aware of and have commented on the Government's proposals are alarmed. On all other aspects of the social fund, matters are even worse than we were first told. It is now apparent that loans will be made only to someone who has been on income support for as long as six months. It is apparent that the Government envisage repayments of up to 10 or 15 per cent. of people's benefit being made. It is far from clear what will happen to someone who is judged by the social fund officers not to be in a position to repay such loans. It appears from what I have read of the Government's statements that the Government intend to rule that if a person is not sufficiently well off to repay a loan he will not get anything. I should be interested to know whether the Minister is able to clarify that point.
As in the social fund as a whole, we are seeing under the Bill a return to officers of the DHSS choosing, as their predecessors did in other agencies, between the deserving and the undeserving poor. We are seeing a step away from provision by right, with people having a clear and understood basis on which to claim. I do not say that they had a simple basis on which to claim. I recognise that the system has been inflexible, especially under this Government, but at least people were able to go through the check list of demands and make a claim as of right. Instead of that, we are back to people being asked to go to the DHSS and plead for charity. We remain convinced that these proposals are mean, divisive and damaging. We shall oppose them on Third Reading.

Mr. Kennedy: I wish to speak briefly on Third Reading to confirm that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Frank Field: Well done.

Mr. Kennedy: Both parties will be in the same Lobby.

Dr. Godman: We shall guide them.

Mr. Kennedy: I have completely lost the thread of my comments. I shall start again. I confirm that the alliance will vote against the Bill.
The most offensive aspect of the Government's actions is that, as I said on Second Reading, this will be the first in a long line of measures which will result in DHSS Ministers being told by their lawyers to rewrite the legislation or be hauled before the courts. They will have to return time and again to the Dispatch Box or to Committees bringing forward more and more alterations to legislation as a result of the social security reviews. This is but the tip of the iceberg.
The fundamental reform announced by the Secretary of State has ended up running into sand. It has been fundamental in the impact it has had on the most vulnerable groups in society but, as the Secretary of State knows, it has not been fundamental in the extent to which it has provided for a fairer, simpler, more efficient social security system.
For example, attention has not been given by Ministers to improving take-up levels. They have made some nods and gestures in that direction, but much of their determination has been to contain, if not to reduce, costs. However the Minister may try to dress it up, the Bill is a cost containment, if not a cost reduction, exercise. The Minister cannot have it any other way.
It is worth noting, for the purposes of the Official Report, what the Social Security Consortium has said. It has continued to raise, among other issues, the practical working of a cash-limited system; the proper definition of community care—for example, grants from the social fund; the unreasonable restriction that loans will not be available to claimants who have been in receipt of income support for less than six months; the issue of mothers under the age of 16 years that the Minister dealt with a few minutes ago, which remains outstanding; and the fact that the £80 level of grant is thoroughly inadequate.
All of these matters, and many others, including independent rights of appeal, remain outstanding, despite the fact that the legislation has been working its way through the system for over 18 months. It is unsatisfactory that, before we have implemented the reform wholesale, we are faced with pre-emptive legislation tidying up the mess which is already anticipated. It is not that the mess will be upon us once the system is up and running; it is in advance of that. Lawyers and DHSS draftsmen are foreseeing that the system will be chaotic. What we have experienced over housing benefit will be nothing compared with what we shall get from the social security reviews. There seems to be no comprehension of that among Ministers.
We have tried to improve the Bill, which may be a necessity in view of the Government's existing legislation, but it is highly offensive and throws up some of the glaring anomalies that the social security reviews will give rise to.
The maternity grant that the Minister is proposing is inadequate in real and cash terms compared with the level following the last general election in 1983.
The system for funeral expenses is not the most sensible system, and I reiterate the point made on Second Reading that it would have been more sensible to have a system with a flat rate payment, with an additional top-up at the discretion of local officers to help people at a time when they most need it. Any sums given could be reclaimed out of the estate of the deceased depending on the circumstances. In that way, much of the distress, which will inevitably take place, could be avoided. It would have been fairer and would have helped to target resources more effectively to those most in need.
The Government have been largely deaf throughout the social security reviews, and this one-page piece of legislation is a further example that that condition has not improved.

Mr. Richard Page: I had not proposed to take part in the debate, but I have been surprised at how long the Bill has taken to get through the House.
I leave aside the reasons for the oversight in omitting the provisions from the Social Security Act, because I wish to examine the direct clash of political philosophies that the Bill produces. Conservative Members believe that those who can help themselves should do so and that we should assist those who cannot. The Opposition believe in a blanket pay-out for everyone.
The only common ground over the Bill is the agreement that reform is needed. The maternity grant has remained unchanged at £25 since 1969. It is a derisory sum for those of straitened means. The death grant of £30 has remained

unchanged since 1967 and is a mere drop in the bucket for anyone who has to pay for a funeral. It is nothing to those who can afford to pay for a funeral and it is little help to those who cannot. That is why I believe that the Bill is necessary. The low level of the grants means that they are of little help to people in need. Giving the grant to everyone does not help those who really need the help.
I am pleased that the £80 maternity grant and the meeting of the reasonable costs of a funeral will not be subject to budgetary constraints. That is an important factor which must be made clear to those who try to denigrate the Bill. However, there may be discussion and dissent about the meaning of the words "reasonable costs". I hope that those who will have to interpret those words will be given clear and generous guidelines.
People who have to bury loved ones cannot run funeral costs through an audit. They are under emotional pressure and they may agree to various arrangements that may not be wise. I hope that the Government will issue guidelines to social security offices to make sure that undue pressure is not put on those who may have agreed to unsuitable arrangements.
I am surprised that one matter has not come to light in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman has not been here."' I have read the various Hansard reports, because I have been approached by local pensioners' groups who have been exceedingly worried about the existing arrangements and have not been satisfied with a mere £30 death grant. People on low incomes have been decidedly worried about that grant and have been asking me for several years to press for an increase. I am delighted that the Government have introduced the Bill and I am surprised that the Opposition are trying to block it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, but I hope that the £500 savings limit will be increased. That limit is against our political philosphy. The limit should be higher because, as a comfort and security, people should be able to have more than £500 to set against a rainy day before they are asked to dip into their pockets. I support the measure because it is in line with the Conservative party philosophy of helping those who need it most.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has considerable ability at the Dispatch Box. That ability has been deployed tonight, as on other occasions, to describe what this measure is about.
I wish to make a short contribution about the Bill's aims. In spite of the generosity of spirit with which the Minister introduced the measure, he was covering up an unbelievable cock-up by the Government. The Minister told us that our amendment was merely technical. If that amendment had been carried, a coach and horses would have been driven through the Bill. So much for it being a mere technical amendment.
Being also of a generous nature, I should not have drawn attention to that if it had not shown the Government's mean approach to our amendments in Committee. Had the Government accepted one of our amendments, which prescribed the levels of benefit, perhaps we should not have needed this squalid Bill. That was disguised by the quality, cleverness and adroitness of the Minister's tongue tonight. Despite all the wonderful talk from the Government Front Bench, claiming that this was a targeting measure, the Bill introduces a cut. Although some people will receive more than they might


have received under the previous scheme, overall the Government will save money to deploy elsewhere— perhaps in the social security budget. With a general election coming up, we do not need to guess where those savings will be made.
Although this does not appear in Roper's "Life of More", in the wonderful film on the subject there is a scene in our Great Hall after Rich has committed perjury. More goes up to Rich, picks up the chain of office round his neck and asks Rich what it is. Rich says that it signifies that he is Chancellor for Wales. More says to Rich that to lose one's soul for the world is one thing, "but for Wales?"
The difference between the Minister and Rich is that Rich did not know that he was doing wrong. The Minister knows that this is a squalid little measure that cuts benefit for large numbers of vulnerable women. The Minister lost his battle in the Department, but he still thought it worth fighting. It is a sign of hope for us that the Minister knows that the measure is wrong. I am sad to say that that hope will not be extended to many of our constituents.

Mr. Nellist: This is a mean, despicable little Bill. It is significant that in the last two hours we have heard only one contribution from the Tory Back Benches, and that contributor obviously does not understand the debate. The Bill does not represent an extension or a reform of the rights of pensioners and expectant mothers, but imposes a cut in the benefits which they could expect to receive. It ends a statutory right to the present level of benefits and introduces instead a measure which, as has become crystal clear tonight, will be inadequate to meet their needs.
By means of the Bill the Tories are creating a generation of cash-limited children. We have talked about the £25 maternity grant, which was introduced in 1969, and we have heard that according to the Department of Health and Social Services the grant should be about £180., According to the Health Education Council and the Health Visitors Association, it should be about £400. According to some other sources, such as the Daily Mirror and the magazine that is entitled "Parents", the grant should be anything up to £700. All that is on offer this evening at the late stage of Third Reading is £80 for expectant mothers. Hundreds of thousands of mothers on low incomes who are not entitled to or not claiming the qualifying benefits will be denied even the £80 that we have discussed.
It is worth remembering that one in four households has a woman as the sole or main breadwinner of the family because of the number of single parents and the consequences of mass unemployment. I happen to think that the best approach would be to increase the level of real national minimum wages so that people have enough money in their pockets from their earnings to enable them not to have to rely on handouts from the Government. That would be a better approach than merely to increase the level of benefits.
The introduction of the Bill will exacerbate another problem. If a mother is unable to receive from the state the necessary level of support when the first baby comes along, there will be the insidious progress of the bounty bag in our hospitals. The manufacturers of the various aids to women, of nappies through to bottles, for example, will provide one each of a small number of items as samples as a form of almost subliminal advertising in the hope that they will buy the material later when they leave hospital.
The Minister has refused to say how the sum of £80 has been arrived at. Instead, he has referred to pressures on the Department over the allocation of funds. He has not really denied the argument that has been advanced forcefully by myself that the sum was based on the number who would be entitled to the grant and the amount set aside for the purpose. The second was divided by the first and the result was £80.
The Bill perpetuates the Social Security Act 1986 in continuing to place the main burden of the rearing of children on the individual, especially on the working class woman. I consider—I believe that my view is shared by the majority of Labour party members—that the burden should be borne by society as a whole. In other words. we need a universal system of statutory maternity grants that are sufficient to allow children to be given an adequate beginning and reflect genuine costs. Such a system should be coupled with maternity and paternity leave and an expansion of nursing and child care so that both parents can experience the joys and responsibilities of bringing up children.
These reforms should be wedded to an increase in wages for midwives and other supportive staff such as health visitors who are disgracefully low paid by the Government. The first step should he to get rid of the Bill. If we are talking about a massive expansion of health and social services, we need a change of Government. Finances should be under the control of a Labour Government so that we can provide the help that British working people so richly deserve.

Dr. Godman: It is plain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, that, despite the Minister's courtesy, fluency and intellectual skills, the Bill is a dismal correction of a squalid Act. The social fund is designed to save money. In translation, that means that the poor will become poorer.
The Minister referred to a realistic maternity benefit, yet he is talking about £80. Two examples of many from my constituency involved sums that were just short of £200. These payments were received by young pregnant women. In other words, claimants will receive less, not more. They will have the right to appeal, for what that is worth. There is no independent system of appeal. However, the inspectors and the rather curious animal that is known as the social fund commissioner could redress grievances. The commissioner or the inspectors may examine recent records of maternity grants and single payments awarded to claimants. Were that to happen, applicants in, for example, Strathclyde would receive payments much higher than those envisaged by the Government. However, that, I regret to say, is a wholly unrealistic view. The present system, as I have said on many occasions, is both cumbersome and obscure. It causes a great deal—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr . Durant.]

Orders of the Day — Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Dr. Godman: The present system causes a great deal of distress to claimants, especially those new to social welfare. I am curious about the social fund commissioner. I understand that young women in these circumstances will obtain loans from the social fund only, when they have received benefit income support for six months.
The proposals stand out in stark contrast to the Government's promise of tax cuts. Here we see the Government at their pernicious worst. We see tax cuts alongside benefit cuts. That, surely, is a disgrace to the very many poor people in Great Britain.

Mr. Haynes: I shall be brief, bearing in mind that another debate will follow this one. I suffered in Committee, and I am suffering once again from some of the squalid things that have been pushed out by Conservative Members.
I wish to refer to a couple of Right-wing Tories who spoke without having listened to the debate. They made a contribution and got it on the record in the hope that their constituents would take note. They were participating in the debate but had not been here to hear every word, unlike other hon. Members who have sat here during the debate this evening. What we have witnessed from the Tories is a disgusting state of affairs. [Interruption.] It is no laughing matter either. I remember the things that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) had to say. I hope that he will have to respond to his constituents, especially to the women of this nation, because the mickey was being taken out of them when some of my hon. Friends were speaking.
When a Labour Government return to office, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will be the Minister for Women and will do a first-class job on their behalf. We do not want any cracks from Conservative Members about that.
We have been talking today about the cradle to the grave. I make no bones about that. I heard the horrible things that were said by Tory Members in Committee and they have been repeated tonight.
Some Conservative Members have arrived back in the Chamber. One of them, the hon. Member for Mid- Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), made a quick intervention, nipped off and now he has come back.
On the question of the death grant, I have experienced over many years as a member of a local authority—

Mr. Robin Corbett: Speak up.

Mr. Haynes: I never thought that I would hear that from a colleague.
When I was a member of a local authority we had to find places in a graveyard for a pauper's funeral. I believe that the proposals in the Bill will mean that there will be more paupers' funerals.

Mr. Major: indicated dissent.

Mr. Haynes: The Minister shakes his head. He is not living in the real world. I do not know where he and other Conservative Members go when they are supposed to be

back in their constituencies. I get around, talk to people, and find out about their serious difficulties. It is high time that the Minister and his colleagues did the same.
In my constituency people experience many financial difficulties, especially over burials. I am trying to say to the Minister—I hope that he will take it in—that I have reason to believe, because of my experience, that there will be more paupers' funerals in the future.

Mr. Major: rose—

Mr. Haynes: I shall not give way. It is 10.2 pm, and we are moving on to a prayer. We are cutting the time for that debate—

Mr. Major: rose—

Mr. Haynes: The final point that I wish to make—[Interruption.]

Mr. Major: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Major.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman feels deeply about these matters. Let me try to put his mind at rest. The underlying thrust of what we are seeking to do is to make sure that the very poorest people who have no resources get not just £30 but the full cost of the funeral. That is the point. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about proper funerals are 100 per cent. wrong.

Mr. Haynes: The Minister is stipulating the type of funeral. It is not fair. He is forgetting those who will not qualify. They are struggling right now. I tell him this: he will have a good send off. [Laughter.] That is funny. The Minister can afford to have a good send off. There will be many more like us who can afford a good send off, but we represent people who are struggling in this world. They are struggling in our constituencies—[Interruption.] I am making my point for the people whom I represent, and other hon. Members have been making their points for the people whom they represent. So the Minister can come off it. He can take the grin off his face. He can think seriously about what we are saying. There will be serious difficulties with the Bill. I tell the Minister this. When we get back into office, we shall repeal it.

Ms. Richardson: As we have gone beyond the time that we expected, I shall be only a couple of minutes. If this miserable little Bill, which was introduced because of some draftperson's mistake— [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh at everything, do they not? It is all funny to them. If the Bill has done nothing else, it has highlighted the meanness of the Government when it comes to dealing with vulnerable people, as so many of my hon. Friends have said. When pregnant women should be having as relaxed a time as possible, in a difficult period in their life, as well as in the delightful period when they have the child, the Government make it difficult for them to get the benefits and goods that they need to make their life as easy as possible.
Nobody has ever suggested that the £25 grant did not need uprating. We have always said that, but to do it in the way that the Government have and in effect cut down the benefits that have now accumulated for pregnant women and babies, is not the way to do it. We need decent benefits as of right— not means-tested. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)


said, we need decent maternity and paternity leave. I add one thing to his package— parental leave. The Government have consistently blocked it for goodnesss knows how many years, and doubtless will go on blocking it until we have blocked them out of government.
With that package of benefits and leave, one can at least ensure that the child and the parent have a decent beginning, with a new little life. Apart from the Government, not a single body that I have met likes the Bill or any other aspect of the Social Security Act 1986. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Name them."] If anyone can name a body that likes the Bill, I shall be happy to hear it. I cannot find a single person or body of people who believe that the social fund in particular is not really the begging bowl. People believe that we are returning to those days which we had all thought had gone for good. With this measure, as with others, the Government are taking us back into Dickensian days.

Mr. Lyell: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that this debate took us from the cradle to the grave. I commend the hon. Gentleman to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead on one point, although, if I may politely do so, I quarrel with him on another. I agree with his comment— and I noted his words carefully because they are the essence of the Bill—that an increased number of people in the targeted groups will get more than they would have received previously. That is the essence of the Bill. We are righting the wrong which the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has just acknowledged existed—

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lyell: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Field: Give way.

Mr. Lyell: I shall not give way.

Mr. Field: My point was that while some women will gain more, the very poorest will gain less. So much for the Government's targeting.

Mr. Lyell: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that that is not exactly what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman was running down Wales in the form of its Attorney-General in the 1550s and he referred to "A Man for all Seasons". I commend to the House my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who is indeed "A Man for all Seasons" not only in this Bill, but, as the House will remember, especially in matters of exceptionally cold weather. Although the Bill has had its chilly moments I shall answer one or two points raised in the debate, especially those raised by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
The hon. Lady raised the matter of appeal and adjudication and asked whether there would be a right of appeal simply on circumstances and whether that was adequate. Of course, in relation to maternity payments, the matter is to be prescribed. The Bill is before the House so that that payment may be prescribed. However, there will be a right of appeal on circumstances and on the amount given against the listed items in relation to funerals and, as has been emphasised, the allocation for funerals to the targeted groups is far more generous than the previous provision.
In connection with appeal, I commend to the House, the comments made by Lord Denning in another place. He saw the proposal coming from this House as being simple, fair and just machinery. He said that he had seen a lot of over-complicated, over-lengthy and over-costly procedures and he commended the appeal procedures to the other place.
With regard to the point about the widow who borrowed and who would no longer need to do so, my hon. Friend the Minister of State was right. It is now possible to give full help with a funeral. The rules will he simpler and it will be easier for people on low incomes to get help. That is of the essence of the Bill. The Bill targets help on those who have the greatest need.

Mr. Beckett: rose—

Mr. Lyell: Problems are being tackled on the principle of concentrating help where it is needed. The level of help given to families and individuals in these wider categories will, for the great majority, be a significant improvement upon what they receive today. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 117.

Division No. 85]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Ancram, Michael
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Farr, Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Favell, Anthony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, John
Galley, Roy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bulmer, Esmond
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, J.


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heddle, John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hirst, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cope, John
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Howard, Michael


Crouch, David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dicks, Terry
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Dover, Den
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dunn, Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Durant, Tony
Jackson, Robert




NOES


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clelland, David Gordon

Jessel, Toby
Nelson, Anthony


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Neubert, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Newton, Tony


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Nicholls, Patrick


Key, Robert
Normanton, Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Norris, Steven


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ottaway, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Knowles, Michael
Pawsey, James


Knox, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lawler, Geoffrey
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Lawrence, Ivan
Pollock, Alexander


Lee, John (Pendle)
Porter, Barry


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Powell, William (Corby)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Powley, John


Lester, Jim
Price, Sir David


Lightbown, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lilley, Peter
Raffan, Keith


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lord, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Rowe, Andrew


Lyell, Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mather, Sir Carol
Thurnham, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wood, Timothy


Moate, Roger



Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Mr. Francis Maude and


Murphy, Christopher
Mr. Michael Portillo.

Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Livsey, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Conlan, Bernard
Loyden, Edward


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
McNamara, Kevin


Corbyn, Jeremy
McWilliam, John


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Douglas, Dick
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Eadie, Alex
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pendry, Tom


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pike, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Raynsford, Nick


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Ms Jo


Forrester, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Foulkes, George
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman
Sheerman, Barry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Skinner, Dennis


Hancock, Michael
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Douglas
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wainwright, R.


John, Brynmor
Wallace, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wareing, Robert


Kennedy, Charles
Welsh, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Winnick, David


Lambie, David



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Don Dixon and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. Ray Powell.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Question accordingly agreed to

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Dockyard Services (Devonport) Order

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to take both prayers together.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Dockyard Services (Devonport) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986, No. 2243), dated 15th December 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
As you have said, Mr. Speaker, with this it will be convenient to take also the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Dockyard Services (Rosyth) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986, No. 2244), dated 15th December 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, he annulled.
This debate has been long awaited, as this is the third occasion on which we have tried to introduce it on the Floor of the House. It is of considerable importance to the 20,000 workers whose terms and conditions of employment will be altered from 5 April 1987. The two orders give effect to the Dockyard Services Act 1986, define the areas of the dockyard and the functions to be carried out within them, and specify the designated date of 4 April 1987 as being the date on which contractorisation will begin.
The prayers mark the end of a lengthy process which has involved consultation and Committee stages. At no stage has any of the pressure from the Opposition made any major impact on the Government's thinking of attitude. The fact that the Government are alone in support of the principle of contractorisation, that they have been discredited by Committees which have within their ranks majorities of Conservative Members, that the Public Accounts Committee, the Defence Select Committee and unanimous opinion outside the House have been against the proposal, has mattered not a whit to the Ministry of Defence.
Section 1(6)(b) of the Act, concerning the legal, economic and social implications of transfer for the employees is the most sensitive part. It was the subject of what has come to be known as the Denning amendment. In another place, Lord Denning was able to insert a provision placing responsibility on the Government to secure some form of consultation. That form of consultation has been wholly unsatisfactory. In last Monday's debate on the Royal Navy, the Minister clearly knew how many redundancies would result from contractorisation and how many contractors Babcock had in mind, but he would not tell the House and he will not tell the trade unions. It makes a complete mockery of the Government's responsibilities to disclose the economic and social implications of the transfer if the unemployment consequences are not made clear.
The unemployment consequences affect not only those who work in the yards and their families, but the communities and those who will work in the yards under different auspices—es and those in the course 'Of study and training. Those awaiting retirement are unclear about the circumstances surrounding their pension rights. The condition of employment of those who may be taken on by the new employers because of skill shortages may be different from those already in employment. People in one yard may be operating under

different terms and conditions of employment from those in another, because there will be no responsibility on the employers to ensure similar standards of pay and conditions and, most importat, pensions conditions, in the two yards.
This debate comes late at night after two false starts, and I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly, because I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I imagine that there will be few voices heard in support of the orders. Among the work force and the management there are grave forebodings about the effects that these two orders will have as they make the way clear for contractorisation.
In every debate that we have had on this topic, we have been united on the outstanding contribution of the work force in times of crisis and national emergency and, the commitment of both the management and the workers to contribute their best to the realm. For many of the workers, this has been an expression of their life's work—a continuation of service to the country that started in the Navy. For others, it is simply the maintenance of proud family traditions.
The willingness to sacrifice, as shown at the time of the Falklands conflict, can never be translated into pounds and pence. It cannot be translated into the profit and loss accounts about which the Government have been speaking, especially for the contractors who are out to make a fast buck, or for the loss of jobs of those workers for whom the accountants have no further use.
These two yards have given public expression to a rare combination of effort and skill. From the labourers and the skilled craftsmen to the designers and managers, from the deck hands to the admirals, civilian and sailor alike have combined to make sure that those who defend our shores, in whatever craft, have done so in the knowledge that no effort or expense has been spared. We believe that our seamen are the best in the world, and they are entitled to the best. Whether the new consortia can maintain those high standards remains to be seen. We hope that they will.
It has to be stressed that the disruption and uncertainty that this wretched Act and these orders will cause in the communities can end only in undermining the work of the yards. The work force feels that the consultative processes have not been fulfilled, and the communities sense that their futures are in danger, so the Government should think again about the whole scheme. Let us make sure this evening that we force the Government to think again, by voting against the orders. That will ensure that we have the time and the opportunity to look for a better solution than the crazy scheme of contractorisation which is embodied in these orders.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): These two orders refer respectively to the Devonport Royal dockyard and the Rosyth Royal dockyard.
The Dockyard Services Act does not specify the dockyard employees who will transfer on vesting day. Rather, section 1(1) defines the "Qualified dockyard service employees" as those persons employed in or in connection with the "dockyard undertaking" in the Civil Service of the Crown on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by order. The "dockyard undertaking" is itself defined as the provision by the Crown of "designated dockyard services", which are to be designated by order.
It follows that the question of who are qualified dockyard service employees is answered by reference to the designated services.
The orders do three things— they designate the dockyards that are to be affected, they designate the dockyards services—that may in future be provided by contractors, and they appoint the date for the purposes of determining who are the qualified dockyard service employees. With your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall consider those three aspects in that order.
First the dockyards. After all the debate which there has been on the Government's policy for the dockyards there can be no hon. Member who is not aware that the dockyards in question are those at Devonport and Rosyth. During the consideration of the Dockyard Services Bill the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Denzil Davies) and his hon. Friends were concerned that the arrangements in the Bill could be applied to any other dockyards that might subsequently be created. To address this concern, and with the agreement of Opposition Members, the Bill was amended to provide that the only dockyards which could be designated by order were
those dockyards which are Royal Dockyards when this Act comes into force.
So the Act put the matter beyond doubt, and the orders respectively designate Devonport royal dockyard and Rosyth royal dockyard.
I turn now to the designation of the "services" in the orders. Since the wording in both orders is identical, my comments apply equally to both dockyards in this respect. As I have said, the designation of services is in order to facilitate the transfer of the appropriate staff. Section 1(1) of the Act refers to the services as being
for or in connection with ships or vessels or related establishments in the service of the Crown, provided at such dockyards, as may,…be designated by the Secretary of State by order.
When the Bill was considered last year, my hon. Friends referred to the services that it was proposed should in future be provided by contractors. The orders are based very closely on the information provided before, but examples of particular equipment and services have been included. As hon. Members can see, the work of the dockyards has been described under five headings.
The first will be recognised as the main task of the dockyards—that of repairing, maintaining, refitting and modernising ships and vessels in the service of the Crown. The words "ships and vessels" are apt to include both surface ships and submarines. Since the latter include nuclear submarines, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to repeat what my hon. Friends have made clear on many previous occasions.
The managing company at the dockyard will be required to comply, in the same way as does any other contractor employed on sensitive defence work, with the stringent security rules that have existed under successive Administrations. Also the company will be required to operate under the terms of a nuclear site licence issued under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Radiological protection of the work force will be as high a priority in future as it is now, and the contractor will have to satisfy the Health and Safety Executive that the legal obligations set out in the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985 are being met.
As those hon. Members who have been closely involved with the dockyards will know, their work is not limited to repairs and refits of vessels. They also repair, maintain, overhaul and test naval equipment and machinery, and examples of such equipment are given under the second heading. The third refers not only to work on machinery equipment used in the dockyard but to that used in
establishments related to ships or vessels in the service of the Crown".
As the order makes clear, it is not the work of other establishments that we are intending to transfer to dockyard contractors but rather work that has been traditionally carried out at the dockyard for other establishments. This includes the work of maintaining the equipment for naval training establishments, or, for example, cranes, generators and high pressure air systems for other fleet and civil shore establishments.
Some dockyard staff who have been employed on such work for other establishments— particularly those furthest away— are expected to remain in the civil service and to be transferred to the strength of the establishments concerned. Discussions on this are being held with the unions involved.
Under the fourth heading are listed examples of the naval equipments which the dockyards manufacture, and these speak, I believe, for themselves. Finally, the list refers to support and utility services, and mentions in particular compressed air, gas, electricity and water. These are services customarily provided by the dockyards, not only for themselves but also for the naval base and other local establishments and ships alongside. It is sensible that the dockyard should continue to provide such services.
I turn now to the last of the three aims of the orders— the appointment of a date for the purposes of determining who may be considered qualified dockyard service employees.
As hon. Members can see, paragraph 4 of the orders seeks to appoint that date as 5 April 1987—that is to say, the day before the planned vesting day of 6 April 1987. It is proposed, therefore, that those employees to whom the arrangements apply who are employed immediately prior to vesting day will be transferred to the contractor. As the House will know, there are some 17,750 industrial and non-industrial employees in the dockyards. Between now and the appointed day of 5 April 1987, some 400 staff at Devonport and 320 at Rosyth are planned to transfer from the dockyard to the naval base commander, remaining in the Civil Service.
As my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement said during the consideration of the Bill, we have made our proposals known to transfer to the staff of the managing director of the dockyards those employed in the dockyard laboratories. Similar arrangements will be made for those who work in the pay offices who will be required to deal with future dockyard personnel and for catering staff and estate maintenance staff. The trades unions are aware of these intentions.
Before leaving the matter of the appointed day, I can inform the House that my right hon. Friend will shortly be writing to the trades unions summarising the considerable amount of consultation which has already taken place with them and setting out his proposals for the final stages of consultation in the period leading up to vesting day on 6 April 1987. As soon as my right hon. Friend has written, I shall place a copy of his letter in the Library of the House.
Since most of the employees' conditions of service transfer unchanged, there is, we believe, sufficient time between now and vesting day for any outstanding consultations to take place. We hope, therefore, that the trades unions will now consider the way ahead speedily and approach the series of meetings we are proposing in a positive and constructive manner.
I have explained the content of the two orders and the reasons for them. They carry forward in a realistic way the Government's plans in respect of the future management arrangements for the dockyards which, as the trades unions have now heard direct from the most senior Royal Navy officers concerned on the Navy Board, offers the best way forward for the Royal Navy, the dockyards, the work force, the taxpayer and the local regions. The Government believe that there is no better way forward and that is why we ask the House to pass these orders.

Dr. David Owen: The Minister's lack of enthusiasm for this legislation was quite obvious from the way that he rushed through a civil servant's brief. This is a fairly miserable day, but I suppose we ought to ask the Minister to justify the decision that he has announced to the House. There is no better starting point than a document, issued on 8 October 1986, which sets out the timetable for evaluating the bids for the two dockyards. I shall deal only with Devonport. The document says that the contract negotiations should be completed by "early December 1986" in order to meet the vesting day which was planned for 6 April.
The contract negotiations have not been completed, and here we are debating in February what should have been agreed in December. The contract, which was to be signed at the end of December, has still not been signed. The parallel running was to start in early January, but I understand it has just started. Any objective look at the Government's own timetable, published in October, shows that the vesting date for Devonport should not be 6 April. The Government find themselves in great timetable difficulties but they are intent on pushing ahead regardless.
The Minister must answer a few questions. The first one is about pensions. On vesting day will the dockyard work force know about its pension arrangements? Will any substantive negotiations be completed about pension arrangements? Will the workers know the detail of their redundancy payments, or will these matters be left until after vesting day, to be settled when the members of the work force are, technically, no longer civil servants? The men have a right to know the Minister's intentions and the House, which has been ignored throughout these proceedings, has at least the right to put to the Minister that it is extremely unfair to the work people to leave the matter over for decision.
It is true that the Royal ordnance factories have not settled the matter, but they were going through a transition and the workers there were still under Government control when their pension arrangements were being left open. The dockyard work force will no longer be under any form of Government control and will be the responsibility of the agency. We are entitled to be satisfied about those issues.
It is my judgment, for what it is worth, that if the unions are not given ample time for the negotiations—they cannot be rushed through between now and 6 April—they would be wholly entitled, if they saw fit to do so under the terms of the legislation and of the obligations to the

European Community under its various laws, to take the Government to court. If the unions take that decision. they will have my full support.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) in his place. He was the first to sense the right contractor. On 2 October, the Plymough Evening Herald made a perceptive comment on the hon. Gentleman: "Clark backs American Bid". We all wondered whether the hon. Gentleman had some special line and whether, being a member of the Government, he was going to tell us something. The trouble is that he backed the wrong American company. He was. after Foster Wheeler. There is little point in a Plymouth Member of Parliament, or anyone else for that matter, spending his whole time criticising Brown and Root, which has been given the contract. Whether we like it or not, for some months at least, we are saddled with the company and Plymouth will have to make the best of it.
As for the Libyan connection, it is a fact that it is not illegal to carry out work for the Libyan Government. It is strange that at Vickers Barrow the part of the new submarine build that cannot be seen by any American is the propulsion unit, yet an American-owned company will be responsible for repair and refit involving the propulsion unit of our nuclear submarines. Anyone who believes that the United States navy would dream of giving a contract for the nuclear propulsion unit of any of its submarines to a British company is not living in the same world as me. It is an extraordinary fact that we keep United States personnel away from the propulsion unit of our nuclear-powered submarines, yet we pass the repairing and refitting to an American-owned company, Brown and Root.
As I said, we have to live with Brown and Root. How it handles the work force in Plymouth, the wage negotiations, the pension arrangements and redundancy payments is of crucial concern to us. I make it clear that my job is to defend my constituents' interests and I shall treat Brown and Root with an open mind. If the company treats the work force well, negotiates well and takes account of the fears of Plymouth city council, Devon county council and Cornwall county council, I shall treat it well, too. I am not in the business of rubbishing that company. The problem is the Government, and I am certainly in the business of rubbishing them.
I still do not know the position of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) on the preferred option. When we first considered these matters on 2 December 1985, she said that she could not support the Government. The hon. Lady said:
If the Government cannot change to the plc fallback position, which is my preferred option".—[Official Report, 2 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 46.]
The hon. Lady then seemed to vacillate about supporting the agency management proposal, provided that it was the dockyard management—the very people whom we were told were not capable of running the dockyard efficiently, which was why we needed to introduce agency management. When agency management for the dockyard management was not granted. we heard little from the hon. Lady about the Government-owned plc. I do not know whether she is in favour of the agency management or whether she will vote for the order. Perhaps we shall hear from her.
I shall deal with one of the points put forward by the hon. Member for Drake. She said, mistakenly, that one


cannot have a trading fund outside the Civil Service. As I made clear in the Navy debate, it is possible. I made it clear that it was possible to do so in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Defence. The only option to which the Government would possibly be converted now would be the Government-owned plc. One gathers from the management of Brown and Root that it is a ritual. No one in Plymouth believes that there is any consultation, but on 13 February the trade unions will be told that Brown and Root is the preferred contractor. I do not intend to go through the pretence of believing that the Government are listening to the debate in terms of the substantive decision. I assume that they will go ahead and railroad the date of 6 April. I reiterate my serious complaint that, as I understand it, none of my constituents know what their pension arrangements or redundancy terms will be.
It is unfair and unrealistic to pass on the redundancy commitments after a period of time to the agency management. Those redundancy commitments must be underwritten in full by the Government. To do anything else would be to treat these loyal people who have served the nation extremely well, very poorly indeed. This is a miserable order on a miserable Bill, and 6 April will be miserable day in Plymouth.
We have not discovered from Brown and Root how many redundancies there will be. It has said that there will be no more than 2,000 compulsory redundancies, but that does not give us any clue as to how many jobs will be lost in Devonport dockyard; nor does it give any clue as to how many jobs will be lost in a knock-on effect. The working assumption seems to be that over a 10-year period we will lose 6,000 jobs from the general management work force and another 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in knock-on effects in Plymouth. If that is the case, the present level of Government assistance for Plymouth to attract new industry is woefully insufficient.
I strongly urge the Minister to try to persuade the Secretaries of State for Employment and for the Environment to take more active measures to help the economy of the far south-west. We will find it difficult to replace those jobs in a male, skilled industry without greater help for the far south-west. This decision alone should justify the creation of a far south-west development agency, and the sooner the better.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Even at this late stage it is worth emphasising that the provisions contained in the orders relate to the defence and security of the nation and to the servicing of the Royal Navy in particular.
We have rehearsed the arguments as to why changes are necessary, and few people would dispute that fact. The majority of people recognise the changing nature and volume of the type of work undertaken in the dockyards. It stems from the fact that there are fewer ships in the Royal Navy, refits occur less frequently and less time is taken for refits.
In recognition of that fact, in April 1985 the Government published their consultative document. There were three options, but one of them was euphemistically called the preferred option—the introduction of agency

or commercial management. Everything that the Government have undertaken since April 1985 has been with that sole objective in mind.
I expressed the fear at the outset—which I have repeated on a number of occasions inside and outside the House—that the system of agency management is speculative and unproven. There is no comparable defence model anywhere in the world on the scale required for the administration of our royal dockyards. The defence and security of the nation is what we are considering. A preferred contractor has been announced for Devonport, which is the consortium comprising Brown and Root, the Weir Group and Barclays de Zoete Wedd, which currently holds 45 per cent. of the shares.
Some people have argued that with the announcement of the preferred contractor some of the anxieties and uncertainties felt locally, not only by the work force but by those in the local economy, have come to an end. I suggest that the contrary is the case. We are not certain what the projected employment figures will be. We know that the core programme represents about 40 per cent. of the existing workload at Devonport, but we do not know what proportion of the remaining 60 per cent. that will go out to commercial tender will in fact come back to Devonport. However, the Ministry of Defence has told the successful contractor that it can expect a maximum of only 50 per cent. Even if that maximum is achieved, this means that Devonport will take only 70 per cent. of its present volume of work.
The third variable is the amount of outside work that the dockyard will attract from the commercial sector. Given the depressed state of the Merchant Navy and of shipyards generally, one cannot be optimistic. Devonport represents a microcosm of British industry and technology—no doubt the same is true of Rosyth. Almost every skill and craft is represented there. With uncertainty hanging over it, perhaps for the next five years or so, there is hardly a conducive environment in which to seek new contracts.
I have been an hon. Member for 16 years and I have never witnessed such unanimity of purpose and outlook locally. The trade unions and the majority of the work force are apprehensive about developments, and the city of Plymouth, supported wholeheartedly by the Devon and Cornwall county councils and the three local district councils all express doubts and fears about the adverse effects of the change. It must be unique in the far southwest for such a consensus of view to exist. I am saddened that the Government have not taken note of that unanimous expression of local concern and anxiety.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that hon. Members seeking to catch my eye will remember that the debate must end at 11.30. It might be sensible to try to share out the time.

Mr. Gordon Brown: As it is three years since the privatisation proposal of Mr. Peter Levene was first divulged to the House, more than two years since the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) first announced his intention to go ahead with privatisation, and more than a year since we started debating the Dockyard Services Bill in Committee, the least that the


House had a right to expect was that the problems that we identified at the outset about retaining a minimum strategic capability in the dockyards, about retaining British control, about the workload and about apprenticeships would have been resolved before the Minister decided to proceed with the orders before us.
After more than seven months in Committee in both Houses, after the work of 19 working parties set up by the Minister and his colleagues and after the period of promised consultation, we are no nearer a solution to all the problems that led a civil servant from the Ministry of Defence to describe the Government's plan as the high-risk option for the maintenance of the fleet, that led the Public Accounts Committee to say that on financing it had received from the Ministry of Defence the worst evidence that it had received in this Parliament, that led originally to universal condemnation of the Government's proposals and that have led the trade unions to regard the consultation process instigated by the Ministry in the past few months as nothing more than a charade.
I leave aside the question of who controls Devonport and Rosyth. In its rush to transfer the dockyards from public to private control, the Ministry of Defence has created conditions under which it has become possible to transfer the dockyards from British to foreign control. In its rush to privatise, the Ministry has failed to secure proper guarantees for jobs, apprenticeships and workloads.
When the operation began, we were assured that the dockyards would retain a strategic minimum reserve for emergencies to do exactly the sort of work which they had to do during the Falkland campaign. Yet now, one of the virtues that the Minister argues for the contract that he has signed is that there is no agreement on a strategic minimum reserve or capability.
One of the documents produced for the work force says that the figures on which the Ministry is working do not assume that additional manpower will be retained as a strategic reserve. There are no strategic reserves, no safeguards and no guarantees. The same applies to jobs, workloads and apprenticeships.
The Government have accepted an obligation under the Dockyards Services Act that they will spell out the legal, social and economic consequences of their actions. They promised only a few weeks ago that they would consult the trade unions about the consequences. The transfer concerns the number of people who will have jobs and the number who will lose them, and yet the Minister has gone ahead in the last few days and signed a contract agreeing to finance a number of redundancies at Rosyth. Tonight he refuses to give a figure, despite obligations under the Act, and claims that the figures are commercially confidential.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I shall give the figures at the end of the debate.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many redundancies have been agreed at Rosyth and are likely to be agreed at Devonport and why there have been changes, even in the last few weeks, in the workload which the contractor is taking over at Rosyth. Will he also confirm that the cuts in the workload are not because of an inevitable rundown in the work at Rosyth or at Devonport, but because of pressures on the defence budget, because of an extension of intervals between refits,

because of reduced engineering standards and because of everything that we feared would be the consequence of privatisation?
The only possible argument in favour of the Minister's proposals, which were accepted so readily by the Admiralty Board, is that they will save money.
Even if we accept that after 1990 some savings might be made, will the Minister accept that the figures are speculative? If we accept that the transitional cost could be spread over a number of years and not be an immediate cost on the defence budget; if we accept that the transfer of the pension fund is a book-keeping exercise and does not involve more than £200 million in the first instance, the Minister must accept that over the next three years, when the Department's budget is under pressure, we shall lose £15 million by privatisation at Rosyth—and much more at Devonport. That is before the Minister finds that he is held to ransom because of unprogrammed refits by monopoly suppliers who will get their price, not the Minister's price.
The proposals arise from dogma and ideology. They mean lower standards, less Government control—although the Government foot the bill—higher costs for the Navy and the Treasury, and a reduction in standards and jobs in the dockyards. We have a loyal work force, dedicated civil servants and a concerned and supportive community, yet the Government have betrayed the workers. The workers legitimately claim that they have been let down by successive Ministers in the Department and are being transferred forcibly to the private sector. They are to be forcibly transferred to the private sector. The national interest is to be subordinated to that of commercial gain. I hope that the election comes sooner rather than later so that this insidious proposal can be immediately reversed.

Miss Janet Fookes: I shall make my contribution to this debate rather shorter than I would have wished, bearing in mind the need for other hon. Members to take part in what is essentially a short time in which to consider these orders.
In passing, however, I register a protest at the way in which this matter has been delayed on no fewer than two occasions. This is the third bite of the cherry, which causes considerable inconvenience to hon. Members and to those outside who take a close interest in these proceedings. We must make a decision now and end uncertainty. From that point of view I welcome the order although I wish to confine my remarks to the order that affects Devonport.
I register surprise at the fact that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) does not appear to find my views on this subject sufficiently clear. I thought that I had made them very clear at various stages throughout the time that we have been considering this matter and especially during the Royal Navy debate a week ago today.
I have always believed that the dockyard should be taken outside the Civil Service. In other words, I have always broadly favoured privatisation in whatever form that may take. I had reservations about the agency management, and I registered those in the House. The turning point for me came when the management team put in its bid, because I felt that that dealt with many of the worries that I had expressed. I am sorry that the right hon.


Member for Devonport did not feel able to join me in at least welcoming with enthusiasm that bid when it came along.
There is no lack of logic on my part in giving the management bid my support, because my point has always been that local management has never had full powers to manage and that the whole web and set-up of the Civil Service was a brake upon efficient activities. That was in no way to decry the work of the work force or the local management. Therefore, I was pleased when it became clear, when the preferred contractor was announced, that the management bid, as I call it, was to be subsumed within the winning bid and that there is therefore a strong likelihood that Mr. David Johnston and his team will be incorporated into the management and will still be responsible for the day-to-day running of the dockyard. That seems to me to be a good move.
I shall deal briefly with certain aspects of Brown and Root. Much has been made by some hon. Members tonight of the number of redundancies. Surely the number of redundancies will depend on how much outside work that consortium or any other consortium brings in when—[Interruption.] I am not sure why that is a cause for laughter. To me it is a key issue. Knowing that there are always ups and downs with Royal Naval work, it makes sense to try to embrace within the dockyard work from outside sources. I cannot tell how much will be brought in, but it is obviously of the greatest importance to the economy of Plymouth that as much should be brought in as possible.
I should have thought that a consortium with Brown and Root in it would have a reasonable chance. It is not without significance that that company is receiving the Queen's award for industry. This award is not handed out to any old company, and it is an indication of Brown and Root's stature.
I have also made particular inquiries of Brown and Root, and I have discussed with the chairman the issue of Americans in the dockyard. It is a Royal Navy rule that no foreigner, no American, can view our nuclear systems, any more than the Americans allow us to view theirs. That will continue to be the case and the Brown and Root consortium will be happy with that. It has no objection to that rule.
I understand also that Brown and Root is keenly interested in and concerned for apprentice training, and we have already had some good news about the number of apprentices who are to be taken on this year in Plymouth. I trust that that will continue to be the position. Members who take a close interest in Plymouth will know that I have always been especially keen and interested in the apprentice centre. I hope that it will become a focus for more and more training, not less and less.
At the short time at my disposal I wish to say that I do not share the gloom and doom that has been peddled by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), or the guarded approach of the right hon. Member for Devonport. I hope that once the decision is made there will be an opportunity to take a constructive approach and to make a real go of the new structure.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall not necessarily take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), but I shall address myself to the subject of Brown and Root during my contribution to the debate.
There is a great rumour circulating in Scotland that the Lord Advocate has been approached with an order, which will be accompanied by a surcharge, to find one Tory in Scotland who is in favour of the measure. I suspect that there is only one—he will be a reluctant supporter—and that is the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Secretary of State for Defence. Wee George is a pragmatic gentleman and I do not believe that he would have visited such a proposal on the House and the country. Throughout the contractorisation of the docks we have yet to hear one Tory Back Bencher who is willing to support and speak up for it. I do not believe that there is one who would be willing to do that.
It would seem that there is a serious deficiency in the order. It designates a number of services, including repair, maintenance, refit and the modernisation of ships and vessels in the service of the Crown, but there is no mention anywhere of main engines or nuclear reactors. That is a serious deficiency in an order of this sort. By their very nature, main engines and nuclear reactors for SSNs and SSBNs are quite apart from anything else. Is the order deficient or is the omission deliberate?
I have great respect and regard for the hon. Member for Drake, but I advise her not to look at the crystal ball when she can read the book. The thrust of the Brown and Root operations in the United Kingdom is oil related. The concept of an oil-related rig yard is to have a core labour force and to add to it when orders come in. I know something of the yard because I went to Nigg bay during its early operations. It is part of Highland "Fab", of which Brown and Root is a major participant. It may be suitable for oil-related work but it is not suitable for a dockyard operation, where we are looking for continuity of skill and workpeople. I offer that to right hon. and hon. Members who represent Devonport.
I am not sanguine about Rosyth. I also prefer to read the book and not look at the crystal ball. We are told that Mr. Allan Smith, the managing director designate, is already in the yard. He seems to be quite an honest fellow. in an interview that he gave a few weeks ago in Spotlight, he said:
I have a contention which I believe is fundamental. You should never tell an employee a lie.
That is good so far as it goes. We are told that later on we are likely to get the redundancy figures. Mr. Smith says:
There is no need for anything other than natural wastage and, in certain cases, limited voluntary redundancy.
Enforced redundancy is a last resort which we would wish to avoid under any circumstances.
As Mr. Smith is in the yard, I presume that the consultation process will become meaningful and that someone will have told the Minister what redundancies he can communicate to the work force.
Further on in the interview, Mr. Smith is asked:
Will pay scales within the new company be substantially different from the present Civil Servant rates?
Employees want to know that. Mr. Smith's answer is interesting:


Pay scales will be related to the success of Rosyth Dockyard. All employees' earnings are related to company earnings. I don't see that anyone would allow us to cut wages.
There is no guarantee in that. There is no guarantee that the remuneration of the work force will be commensurate with what it is now earning. That is a bit of sleight of hand. It is not a lie that Mr. Smith is telling, but it is certainly something that is a little different from the truth.
There is also the concept of bringing new work into the yard. Mr. Smith is asked:
There is a great deal of mistrust of commercial management in the Dockyard, how will you overcome those fears?
Mr. Smith tells us that new work might be coming in. But there is no guarantee about the type of work. He continues:
Babcock Thorn have every intention of coming into the Dockyard and staying, not just for the seven years of the Term Contract, but beyond that although a second Term Contract would have to be negotiated.
Mr. Smith looks forward to other further work, but it is not clear what it will be. Essentially, the dockyard has a guaranteed workload with a core programme. It is always much easier to attract new business if one already has a heavily loaded core programme. One has a yard with a core programme, and trying to attract new work that may not be related to it is the problem. There are real dangers in that.
Anyone who thinks that this cock-eyed idea will facilitate servicing and keeping the Navy afloat, which is the sole purpose of the dockyard, is stoned out of his tiny mind. It is significant that the Minister cannot move from his brief. He shows the flexibility of mind of someone learning to read by rote. He has no idea whatsoever. I doubt whether he has ever been near a dockyard. I advise him, for goodness sake, not to attempt to go near Rosyth because I would not be willing to guarantee his well-being.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: After listening to the Minister tonight, the House will know that I will be the next Member of Parliament for South Hams. We need a swing of about 45 per cent. and anything is possible after listening to the Minister's comments tonight.
Last Monday the Minister referred to the savings that the exercise would produce. He said that more than £320 million would be saved over the next four years and more than that thereafter. Not one person in Devon, Cornwall or anywhere else in the country would believe that. The Minister did not say where he got the figure from; he probably just thought it up. It was not in his brief tonight. However, perhaps he has the figures in his brief for the redundancies.
The redundancy figure has varied. Brown and Root estimated the figure to be 2,400 on one occasion and 3,200 on another. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on Monday and again tonight has estimated the figure to be about 6,000 plus about 2,000 indirect job losses. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) does not know how many redundancies there will be but hopes that they will all be taken up by private work in the dockyard. We hope that the hon. Lady is right. However, I guess that she is not. The industry is in such a state that the amount of work coming from that source will be very marginal indeed.
I want to thank the Minister for making the arrangements for my visit to Devonport dockyard just

before the Recess. I must report to the hon. Member for Drake that the people I met did not have anything nice to say about her. She will have to get off the fence before the next election because everyone in Devon and the local authorities in Devon and Cornwall are opposed to the Government's actions at the moment—

Miss Fookes: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: And many Conservative Members are opposed to this including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) who says that he will try to get extra money from the Government because of the enormous loss of jobs that will result from this exercise.
This exercise will be the biggest issue in the election in the south-west, including my Bill for the establishment of a south-west development agency which I asked the right hon. Member for Devonport to support. He refused, as did the hon. Member for Drake. That was a wonderful idea to resolve the unemployment problems of Devon and the south-west, but Conservative Members turned it down, with the exception of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) who agreed to sponsor my Bill.
The consequences of the Government's policy will be devastating in terms of jobs and job opportunities in the south-west. Every hon. Member from the south-west is aware of that. If they had the faith in their convictions that they should have, they would join the Opposition in the Lobby to support the workers in their areas by opposing the Government's dogmatic approach to a very important issue of national security.

Mr. Michael Foot: If there is anything more disgraceful than the proposition that the Government have put before us, it is the way in which they have pushed this measure through the House. I remember vividly on the Second Reading of the Dockyard Services Act 1986 that the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) did not even turn up to move the Second Reading.
On this squalid occasion tonight, the Minister has not answered any of the arguments and the Government have not carried through any of their commitments. They should have consulted properly with the workers concerned. Those discussions and negotiations have been a farce, as everyone who has read the reports in the Western Morning News and elsewhere will be aware. This has been an absolutely disgraceful way in which to treat people who have given tremendous service to this country for nearly 400 years.
The Royal dockyards have served the nation and the Navy and have been publicly owned. The Government have, without any consultations or commitments to the people involved, wrecked the whole of that process. They cannot even tell us how many people will be thrown out of their jobs and what will happen to those people when they have lost their jobs. They cannot tell us what will happen to the royal dockyards when that happens. As soon as the Labour party wins the next election, we will scrap this measure which should never have been brought before the House.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) wanted details of the information given to the work


force on pensions. A consultative document on pensions and an outline of the proposed new scheme were sent to the unions in April 1986. The non-industrial unions attended a joint meeting in August 1986 to which the industrial unions were invited. Industrial and nonindustrial unions declined to partake in further discussions until a meeting this month. Our intentions for the new pension scheme are clear. We shall set up schemes which replicate the Civil Service scheme as closely as possible. The consultative document fully illustrates that intention. I hope that the unions will come and talk, which so far they have been slow to do. It is in their interests.
On redundancy, we have always made it clear that redundancy requirements under the new employer would take full account of reckonable service in the Civil Service pension scheme, would reflect Civil Service redundancy procedures and would pay equivalent levels of benefit. Babcock Thorn and Devonport Management Ltd. have given undertakings, written into the term contract, that existing Civil Service terms will not be changed without negotiation and agreement with the trade unions. A paper setting out those arrangements in more detail will be passed to the unions later this month. I hope that they will come to discuss it.
I told the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that I would tell them about job losses rather than redundancies at Rosyth. Under the Government-owned plc, we forecast 1,160 job losses during the first four years. Since we signed the contract with Babcock Thorn, it has said that it expects no redundancies in the first year, because the workload is such that it will be unnecessary. The company believes that there will be job losses of 200 a year for the next three years. So they will be running at half the rate that we expected under a Government-owned plc. It is expected that those losses will be covered by natural wastage, although there will be some voluntary redundancies. It is highly unlikely that there will be compulsory redundancies.
If either of those hon. Members was my Member of Parliament, I would resent the alarm and despondency that they are trying to spread among the work force at Rosyth. It is the most appalling nonsense, when one considers that those job losses will be covered by natural wastage. What on earth do they think they are doing?
As the House will know, for Devonport we have only a preferred contractor, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to make a decision on the future of Devonport later this month. In those circumstances, we cannot come to a firm agreement over job losses there.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister accept that 600 redundancies in an area of high unemployment are wholly unacceptable and unnecessary? What is the status of the assurance from Babcock International about the first year of the contract?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me. They are not 600 redundancies; they are 600 job losses, and most will come from natural wastage. It is a great pity that he cannot even hear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) reflected the worry at Devonport. I accept that, but we must remember that what is worrying the work force at Devonport is the falling workload of the

naval refitting programme. That would be a problem whatever management we had at Devonport. We have always believed that if we introduced private contractor management to Devonport, much more work would be brought in. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) also mentioned that. We cannot avoid the problem of a declining workload. Far fewer ships are coming in to be refitted, and we must amelioratethe job losses whatever form of management the dockyard has. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake was right to say that we must make the decision now. I am glad that she does not share the gloom and doom of Opposition Members. She is right not to.
Apprentices were mentioned. This matter is an important criterion when assessing the bids. Both Babcock Thorn and Devonport Management Ltd. have stated a commitment to apprentices and the continuation of training. Babcock Thorn intends to take on about 100 at Rosyth in 1987 and Devonport Management Ltd. intends to take on about 125 or 150 in 1987 and much the same in the following two years, according to its preliminary indications.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has great ambitions in the west country, as we can see, but I am not sure that they are shared by many right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 152.

Division No. 86]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hancock, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Caborn, Richard
Haynes, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hicks, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Howells, Geraint


Clay, Robert
Hoyle, Douglas


Clelland, David Gordon
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Kennedy, Charles


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ronald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dormand, Jack
McNamara, Kevin


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eadie, Alex
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Maynard, Miss Joan


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon






O'Brien, William
Skinner, Dennis


O'Neill. Martin
Soley, Clive


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Spearing, Nigel


Park, George
Steel, Rt Hon David


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wallace, James


Redmond, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wareing, Robert


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Ancram, Michael
Dunn, Robert


Ashby, David
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Favell, Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, John
Forth, Eric


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Franks, Cecil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bottomley, Peter
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Galley, Roy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bruinvels, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Budgen, Nick
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harvey, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Cockeram, Eric
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, John
Hayes, J.


Couchman, James
Hayward, Robert


Crouch, David
Heddle, John





Hickmet, Richard
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hind, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hirst, Michael
Moate, Roger


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Holt, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Howard, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Newton, Tony


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Norris, Steven


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Jackson, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Key, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Powell, William (Corby)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Powley, John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Price, Sir David


Knowles, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawler, Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lester, Jim
Rowe, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maclean, David John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Wheeler, John


Madel, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Major, John
Wood, Timothy


Marlow, Antony



Mather, Sir Carol
Tellers for the Noes:


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. David Lightbown and.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Michael Portillo.

Question accordingly negatived.

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Mr. Attorney General be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr. Solicitor General be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — Education Reorganisation (Sutton)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for giving time this evening to answer a debate about a subject of enormous concern to my constituents in Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park. That concern is felt equally by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I have finished my speech.
I fully appreciate the locus under which the Department of Education and Science has to operate when considering these proposals, which ultimately come to the Secretary of State. I fully understand the quasi-judicial role of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State over the next few months. These are early days in considering the radical and debilitating options that have been offered to Sutton's residents by the alliance council.
I ask my hon. Friend to look at the problem facing parents in Sutton as they try to fathom the reasons behind these damaging, destructive and extreme proposals. Let no one be in any doubt—they have all the hallmarks of Socialism, reminiscent of the 1970s, when the Lib-Lab pact did so much to undermine the country. Education in Sutton is now being undermined, and, if the residents do not make their feelings known, we are in for a decade of educational chaos, rather like those years in the 1960s, when other local education authorities embarked on a programme of chaos, thus generating some of the disasters in national standards.
In Sutton, we have not had disasters until now. My hon. Friend knows well that Sutton has always had a high success rate, and any analysis will show it to be one of the top three education authorities. I find it impossible to comprehend the thinking behind these options—if any thinking has been done. It seems on the face of it to be pure political dogma. Before I offer that theory, we must look at the individuals involved in encouraging our people in Sutton to follow them down the path of social destruction. The social consequences on the community are the first item that we have to consider.
It is revealing to note that in the ranks on the new alliance council in Sutton there is a plethora of social scientists. I will not be uncharitable about that profession, because there is no doubt a worthy function for it. However, I fear that not much social science has gone into their thinking on the options paper.
There is widespread anxiety in the teaching profession over these issues. All the work done by our excellent head teachers and their staffs will be lost, and in Sutton we have a devoted teaching force. There is concern among parents, especially those whose youngsters are in primary school or just embarking on their secondary schooling. Anxiety in the home quickly affects youngsters, and any talk of major reorganisation tends to destabilise the community. By the nature of things, it will be prolonged, and thus have an enormous impact. There is no progress in schools when there is reorganisation. There is simply regression, and that is bad for the confidence of the teaching staff, parents and pupils. It undermines many socio-economic factors. Many people are put off moving into the area; housing prices can be affected; it can undermine commerce and

industry in many ways. Therefore the social factors are absolutely critical. There are many areas that we have to look at, but social factors are an essential element in our consideration of these problems.
As for financing such a project, it looks as though Sutton has a looming problem over rates. I predict huge increases for my constituents before the year is out. One knows that the authority is increasing the number of staff and that it has retained the Marketing and Opinion Research Institute to handle the public consultation exercise for rates and local services. Even without the cost of education reorganisation, which admittedly would be over a period of years, we are heading for the title "Big spender of the south." I must warn my constituents to read the small print of the questionnaires very closely, because these papers are not what at first they appear to be.
We can take comfort from the words of Lord Diplock in a judgment in 1983. He said that a rating authority owes a duty to its ratepayers to deploy the full financial resources available to them, to the best advantage. Equally we know that section 76 of the Education Act 1944 also has the effect that a local authority is required to avoid "unreasonable public expenditure."
The Audit Commission has also made some important observations, detailing some of the steps that should be taken. It said that the authority should
determine the cost of doing nothing in financial and educational terms before any options are considered.
It goes on to say that rumours are more damaging than reality and that the council should release a discussion paper outlining the problem and the cost of doing nothing and also publish the full range of options, with the cost and educational options spelt out for discussions before the local education authority decides what course to adopt.
I noted, too, in the publication "Education" dated 3 October 1986 an article by the deputy chief education officer of Devon, a county that is also going through this particular reorganisation scheme. He said:
It is necessary in any but the simplest scheme to have a second round of public consultations where the preferred option of the council is presented.
Time will tell whether we have a local authority in Sutton that recognises expertise and advice. At the moment it appears to be hell-bent on pursuing political dogma.
I turn to the third category that I want to examine—education in Sutton. It is a vital area for consideration. I must emphasise that my grave concern about the future of our young people in no way hinges upon grammar schools versus comprehensive schools. In Sutton we have a range of schools. Anybody who studies the prospectus of the local authority will see that that is so. I am anxious to retain the system that has served us and that is serving our youngsters so well. I cannot stress that point too strongly. It is serving us extremely well.
I said at the outset that our record is in the top echelon of the nation's educational achievement. The statistics show it, from the Inner London education authority's statistical survey to the recent Sheffield survey that was published not only in the Daily Express but in The Times Educational Supplement, which carried it on 30 January 1987. Indeed, in its statistical bulletin 13/84 the Department of Education and Science shows, in a regression analysis, that Sutton is the only local education authority among the London boroughs to have better actual passes than that forecast, or "fitted", by my hon. Friend's Department.
I shall quote the two extremes. I refer to the assessment of the London borough of Sutton by the Department of Education and Science. It said that no graded results should reveal a percentage of just under 8 per cent. Actual passes were just on 6·5 per cent. At the other extreme an assessment made by the Department of Education and Science suggested that those with one or more higher graded passes at O level or CSE should be 57·7 per cent. Sutton achieved over 60 per cent. In the category of one or more passes at A level, the suggested forecast figure by the Department is 18·8 per cent. Sutton achieved nearly 25 per cent. That gives some idea of how successful and effective we are.
Those statistics are open to everybody, wherever they may be, to review. Anybody who studies them will conclude that we have excellent results under the present system. Her Majesty's inspectorate report of 1983 recognised the all-round competence of Sutton's education system. I offer one comment from that report. The report says:
The secondary schools are pleasant, well-ordered institutions, with hard-working and committed teachers. The courtesy and discipline of pupils and students is impressive—the achievement of pupils is generally satisfactory. Pupil achievements in public examination is good and teachers in Sutton's secondary schools are more likely to be graduates than the national average.
That is not a bad series of recommendations to begin with. If we had more time in this debate I could enhance the evidence for the local education authority to note. I and Conservative councillors in Sutton have tried to elicit from the council what reasons it has for wishing to smash a good system. It is clear that reorganisation is not necessary as a result of falling rolls because the local education authority, under Conservative leadership, and under the education committee chairmanship of Mrs. Mavis Peart, took some difficult and unpopular decisions and closed four schools, taking out all the surplus places that it was necessary to take out. That was consistent with the need to allow for the expansion in rolls in the early 1990s. That fact is well acknowledged by the district auditor. In stark contrast, many other local authorities have had serious problems with falling rolls and surplus places and some are having a second and third reorganisation within 15 years. That is destabilising, but not so in Sutton's case where stability was acknowledged by the careers inspectors.
Another argument that I have heard used in favour of reorganisation in the council is what it claims is lack of opportunities for a wide range of subjects in either grammar or secondary modern schools. This is arrant nonsense, because Greenshaw comprehensive school in my constituency offers 23 CSE opportunities. Cheam high school, which is a secondary modern, offers 29, and it is the same throughout the borough. There is an enormous range of opportunities. We have linked courses with the college of further education, TVEI CPVE and so on. There is a broad curriculum and to say that there is not is to demonstrate ignorance. It is disappointing to note that the council has refused to offer the status quo as an option in its so-called consultation. That is against the advice of just about every organisation and, indeed, the circular from the Department of my hon. Friend the Minister. I rather feel that someone in Sutton's education committee is, perhaps, pursuing a personal vendetta against his or her former school and that that is the target of the strategy. I notice that twice in council the alliance voted against further consultation on a preferred option

and my evidence so far is that this so-called consultation is meaningless, because parents have to unravel nine listed options, all of which, inevitably, mean change. Where is the leadership?
There are so many disadvantages to reorganisation on comprehensive lines and even more with a break at 16 years of age. First, we would have total chaos and disruption for a minimum of 10 years. Secondly, the proposals will have a disastrous effect on the staff. Thirdly, quite clearly the proposal is wholly unnecessary in the education sense. Fourthly, there will be more mixed schools, which most parents dislike. Fifthly, schools will become larger, and social problems are likely to start. Sixthly, there will be endless disruption for pupils between the ages of 16 and 18 as the local education authority tries to set up a tertiary college, and the problem will be compounded if the denominational schools refuse to join in.
The cost of building a new tertiary college or an extension at Carshalton college of further education would seem never-ending to the ratepayer. Disruption would be prolonged for the student. That is further evidence of the total disarray that we could expect—all because the alliance says that it has a manifesto commitment. Judging by the results of the election last May, I tend to doubt that.
The alliance says a great many things about its reasoning for going comprehensive and encouraging 11 to 16 schools. It says that the 11-plus is too restrictive on the primary school curriculum and that it dominates work in all primary schools. That is nonsense. What does a child have to undertake—merely two verbal reasoning tests and one practical test? Head teachers are under instruction not to coach or pressure the children. The alliance claims also that the 11-plus puts pressure on parents. It says that it is considering banding- testing children at 11 plus—to allocate different abilities fairly between comprehensive schools. Furthermore, I am told that the chairman of the education committee has said that the alliance does
not object to tests—just to the pressure it puts on parents".
The alliance council says also that the 11-plus is not an accurate prediction at that age for sorting out children into different schools and thus influencing future careers. That, too, is nonsense. Pupils can and do transfer, but not many do because, in general, parents are totally satisfied and do not seek a transfer for their children.
I note with growing anxiety further pronouncements from the alliance group. It says that secondary modern schools cannot provide a full range of advanced level subjects and that, therefore, the pupils are at a disadvantage. That is absurd. Non-selective pupils do not, on the whole, have the ability to take advantage of a full range of A-levels. At the Greenshaw comprehensive school, non-selective pupils in the main do not take the A-level courses. They opt for CPVE, one-year re-sits, CET, and so on. In addition, pupils can transfer from one school to another or to Carshalton college of further education. The message that must be put across to the alliance council in Sutton is that, nowadays, at 16 years of age there is a choice.
The council tells us that the comprehensive system offers all pupils similar opportunities. Our present system offers all those same opportunities. The non-selective schools have the same range of subject options as the comprehensive school. Changing the system will not make any difference. The alliance council also says that our


grammar schools offer solely academic subjects. That is patently absurd, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State understands. Business studies, TVEI, CDT are part of a grammar school curriculum.
The council's paper, which is now available for analysis, states:
This leaflet invites you to help decide the future pattern of secondary education in Sutton. The move to a comprehensive system is a tremendous opportunity to make real improvements in the quality of our schools and the Council is determined to let everyone have a say in how this can best be done.
The Council decided to move to a comprehensive system
Where is the choice? That is the alliance council's interpretation of consultation. It is decided by the committee; it is now a fait accompli. There is nothing liberal about these proposals.
But the most challenging issue facing teachers and parents is the alliance proposal in the paper to go for a tertiary college for students at age 16. This is a major break with our tradition in Sutton. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will recall that, in the early part of this decade, I chaired a research group inquiring into education for 16 to 19-year-olds which was composed of all interested organisations. I do not think that that system is suitable for Sutton. It may well be suitable in some large metropolitan cities. A break at 16 may be beneficial. But at Sutton parents, teachers and head teachers will have to think very carefully before caving in to pressure from the alliance for this wholly new dimension to education in Sutton.
The future position is made clear in the option paper:
In Sutton the tertiary college would be based on the present site and premises of Carshalton College. The premises would have to be extended and would cater for about 2,200 full-time equivalent students instead of 1,400 as at present.
Everything that we read about the proposals is a mess. If the proposals go ahead, I foresee a barren wasteland for education in Sutton, especialy in the 16–19 years age group. I see that for an entire generation and beyond. These proposals are disreputable, deceitful and designed to destroy.

Mr. Nigel Forman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) and the Minister?

Mr. Forman: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall speak briefly in the strongest possible terms in support of my hon. Friend and his carefully researched speech. The proposed reorganisation of Sutton schools will be damaging, disruptive and expensive. It will be damaging to schools of proven worth, such as Wallington boys school and Wallington girls school. It will be disruptive to an excellent local education system which caters successfully for the full range of pupils and educational needs. It might force certain schools, such as Wilson's, which are an asset to the borough into the private sector. It will be expensive. Estimates of the cost of going comprehensive vary, but the figure could be as high as £12 million to £14 million for building works alone.
My hon. Friend has already quoted the chairman of the local education committee, who claims that the move to a comprehensive system will provide a tremendous

opportunity to raise quality. I strongly dispute that. The quality of Sutton schools is high. Parents have been in the habit of moving into the borough for the quality of education provided, and the only consequence of such a damaging reorganisation will be to lower standards and demoralise pupils, staff and parents alike.
It is pretty good cheek for Mr. Penneck, the chairman of the local education committee, to end his message in the popular version of the consultation document by saying:
Your Council wants to hear from you".
What a slippery contrast to the local election campaign of last spring, when the alliance parties were careful to disguise their true preference for a comprehensive system.
What is on offer now to parents and pupils is nothing more than a damaging, disruptive, Socialist-inspired plan to go comprehensive smuggled into the realm of political possibility in a false alliance prospectus. At the least, local people should be encouraged to go out and cast their votes for the existing system, the status quo. Any other outcome would be an act of gratuitous vandalism by local alliance and Labour politicians, who should know better if they claim to be in touch with local feelings. I appeal to them to think again before it is too late. If they do not, they will bear a heavy responsibility for which the vast majority of local people and my constituents will not forgive them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) on obtaining this early Adjournment debate on the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in the London borough of Sutton. I am grateful, too, for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). I should also like to pay tribute to my good friend, Mrs. Mavis Peart, for all the good work that she has done in the past and will continue to do in the future in the London borough of Sutton. I am aware that this issue is currently stimulating a great deal of local interest and discussion.
As my hon. Friends know, a standard set of procedures comes into play when a local education authority wishes to change the organisation or pattern of provision of its schools. These procedures are laid down by sections 12 to 16 of the Education Act 1980. Briefly, the requirements are that when a local education authority or, in certain circumstances, the providers of a voluntary school wish to establish, discontinue or alter the character or size of a school they must publish proposals explaining their intentions.
During the two-month period following publication, it is open to interested parties to submit objections to the proposals. If such objections are made, or if the Secretary of State has given appropriate notice to the local education authority, or if the school concerned is a voluntary school, the proposals fall to be decided by the Secretary of State and may not be implemented without his approval.
I should also mention that, although it is not a requirement of the Act, it has been established in the courts that those likely to be affected by proposals have a legitimate expectation to be consulted before such proposals are made. I understand that Sutton LEA has now reached that stage. It has issued a consultation paper seeking observations on a number of options with a view to publishing proposals later in the year.
When the Secretary of State is deciding on proposals to establish, discontinue or alter schools, he is under a general duty to act fairly. In other words, he must judge each proposal or set of proposals on its merits, taking into account both the arguments of those making the proposals and the views of those objecting to them.
My hon. Friends will, I am sure, understand that it is important for the Secretary of State to avoid prejudging the issues involved in such proposals. They will not, therefore, expect me to say anything about the proposed reorganisation that is the subject of this debate. I hope, however, that they will accept my assurance that I have

listened very carefully to what has been said tonight, and that the points will be taken into account, along with other representations that we may receive, before a decision is reached on any proposals that may come to my right hon. Friend.
I thank my hon. Friends for the great interest that they have shown in the issues that they have brought before the House. I note their remarks most carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.